This is The DEFCON Warning System. Alert status for 1 PM UTC, Monday, 10 August 2026:

Condition Green – DEFCON 5.

There are currently no imminent nuclear threats at this time.

The Ahmad Vahidi Nuclear Quote Has No Credible Source

On 5 August, a statement attributed to IRGC commander-in-chief Ahmad Vahidi circulated online, claiming that Iran would continue working on nuclear weapons for as long as the United States and Israel possessed them. The allegation was subsequently repeated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Senator Rick Scott, Fox News, and other outlets.

However, no original evidence has emerged. An investigation by the Israeli news organisation Ynet found no Iranian speech, video, transcript, news-agency report, or independent wire report containing the statement. It traced the claim through an Indian nationalist social-media account and English-language Israeli accounts before it was repeated by senior officials. An informed Iranian source quoted by the Tehran Times also denied that an Iranian military commander had made the remarks.

The available evidence therefore supports the conclusion that Vahidi did not make the statement, or, at minimum, that there is no credible basis for claiming that he did. The purported quote should not be treated as an Iranian admission of a nuclear-weapons programme.

That correction does not resolve the separate questions surrounding Iran’s enrichment activities, undeclared work, inspection access, or long-term intentions. It does show how an unsupported claim can move rapidly from social media into official political statements. In a crisis involving nuclear facilities and active warfare, such a misinformation chain can distort threat assessments and create pressure for military action.

Iran Is Betting That Time Is on Its Side

Iranian leaders increasingly believe that the United States will eventually have to accept Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran’s calculation rests on the war’s unpopularity in the United States, pressure from high energy prices before the November congressional elections, declining stocks of important American munitions, and the potential cost of reopening the strait by force.

An adviser to Iran’s chief negotiator characterised Iran’s objective as the enemy’s defeat rather than merely an agreement. Iran has also insisted that the strait will not return to its pre-war status as an unrestricted international waterway.

During the week, Iran and Oman reported progress on arrangements for shipping lanes through the strait. A proposal under discussion would give Iran authority over ships entering the Gulf, although important details remained unresolved and the United States has repeatedly opposed Iranian control of the waterway.

By 10 August, Iran said an agreement with Oman was nearing completion, but it made clear that this would not automatically reopen the strait. Tehran demanded an end to United States military threats and the naval blockade, the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen assets, compensation for war damage, and an end to attacks against Iran and its regional allies. Iran and the United States continued to exchange messages through intermediaries, but they were not engaged in direct negotiations.

Why an Iranian “Victory” Could Affect the Nuclear Question

Control of the Strait of Hormuz is not, on its own, a nuclear-war issue. The nuclear danger arises if Iran concludes that sustained military and economic coercion can force the United States to accept Iranian freedom of action in other areas.

The immediate negotiations have pushed the nuclear dispute into the background. An Iran-based analyst told the Associated Press that this delay serves Tehran’s interests because control of the strait would provide leverage when nuclear negotiations eventually resume.

If Washington lifted sanctions and military pressure without securing enforceable nuclear restrictions, renewed International Atomic Energy Agency access, and an accounting of Iran’s enriched uranium, Iranian leaders could conclude that time and resistance had defeated Western non-proliferation pressure. That could allow Iran to preserve or expand enrichment capacity, restrict inspections, disperse sensitive work, or pursue weaponisation-related activity clandestinely.

This is a risk, not an established outcome. Iran’s economy remains badly damaged, its conventional forces have suffered heavily, and indirect communication continues. A settlement that first reduces military activity and then restores verifiable nuclear controls could move the strategic situation away from both conventional and nuclear escalation. The decisive question is whether the nuclear file is merely postponed or effectively abandoned.

American Munitions Pressure May Change Deterrence Calculations

There are disputed reports that the United States had used “virtually all” of its available Army Tactical Missile Systems and Precision Strike Missiles during the five-month Iran war, according to people familiar with internal data. One source said the United States had also expended slightly less than half of its global Tomahawk cruise-missile inventory. A study cited by Reuters estimated that approximately 65 per cent of Patriot interceptors had been used between February and July, while the THAAD interceptor inventory was at least 38 per cent lower than at the war’s beginning.

The White House and Pentagon disputed suggestions that the United States could not meet its military commitments, stating that sufficient capabilities remained and that production was increasing. Precise remaining quantities are not publicly available.

The reported drawdown does not weaken the United States’ strategic nuclear deterrent. It may, however, affect how Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea judge American capacity to sustain several conventional conflicts at once. A perceived shortage of long-range strike weapons and missile interceptors could encourage adversaries to probe United States commitments or prolong conflicts in the belief that time favours them.

The Makkah Pact Creates a New, but Undefined, Defence Commitment

On 7 August, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement. The official joint statement says that an armed attack against any one of the three states will be regarded as an attack against all three. It also calls for broader defence cooperation and collective deterrence.

The publicly released statement does not specify what assistance each country must provide, what actions would qualify as an armed attack, or whether a response would be automatic. Pakistan described the pact as defensive and consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Turkey said the members would consult on the degree, form, and format of support required in a crisis.

Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, while Turkey is a member of NATO. Nevertheless, the public agreement does not mention nuclear weapons, nuclear sharing, or an extension of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent to the other signatories. It also does not extend NATO protection to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Claims that the agreement creates a Pakistani nuclear guarantee for the three countries go beyond the available evidence.

The pact may still alter the regional balance. It links Saudi financial and political influence, Turkey’s sizeable and technologically advanced armed forces, and Pakistan’s military experience in a standing collective-defence framework. It may deter attacks by raising uncertainty about whether aggression against one member will bring assistance from the other two.

At the same time, uncertainty over the response mechanism could invite an adversary to test the pact below the threshold of a clear state attack. That possibility arose almost immediately. On 9 August, the Iran-aligned Houthis claimed a drone strike against Saudi Aramco’s Jazan refinery. Saudi Arabia confirmed that a fire occurred and was extinguished without injuries, but it did not publicly attribute the cause. Neither Turkey nor Pakistan immediately said how the agreement applied.

Iran’s official response was restrained. On 10 August, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tehran had no reason to believe that the pact was directed against Iran and described regional reliance on local security capabilities as potentially constructive. That response lowers the immediate risk of an overt Iranian countermove, although Iran may still view an expanding Sunni-led security bloc as a longer-term constraint or encirclement effort.

The pact could reduce nuclear risk if it deters attacks and gives regional states greater confidence in collective defence. It could increase risk if proxy attacks draw the members into direct conflict, if Iran concludes that hostile states are forming a wider coalition, or if Pakistan’s nuclear status is deliberately invoked during a Gulf crisis. None of those escalatory conditions has yet been established.

The DEFCON Warning System is a private intelligence organisation which has monitored and assessed nuclear threats by national entities since 1984. It is not affiliated with any government agency and does not represent the alert status of any military branch. The public should make their own evaluations and not rely on the DEFCON Warning System for any strategic planning. At all times, citizens are urged to learn what steps to take in the event of a nuclear attack. If this had been an actual attack, the DEFCON Warning System will give radiation readings for areas that are reported to it. Your readings will vary. Official news sources will have radiation readings for your area.

For immediate updates, visit www.defconwarningsystem.com. Breaking news and important information can be found on the DEFCON Warning System community forum and on the DEFCON Twitter feed @DEFCONWSAlerts. You may also subscribe to the DEFCON Warning System mailing list. Note that Twitter updates may be subject to delays.

The next scheduled update is 1 PM, 17 August 2026. Additional updates will be made as the situation warrants, with more frequent updates at higher alert levels.

This concludes this report of the DEFCON Warning System.