Ynet, the Israeli news source, is deliberately making up total BS about how Iran has temporarily stopped "aggressively making fissional uranium" used in warheads, in order to buy time to develop more advanced centrifuges and then to "manufacture warheads much faster."
The problem is that term "90% fissionable uranium" which Ynet uses is simply another way of saying weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) -- and Iran has never made HEU; In fact, rather than making HEU, Iran has offered to place legal limits on its enrichment program, subject to IAEA verification, to ensure that it would only make low-enriched uranium (LEU) which cannot be used to make bombs. So not only has Iran not make HEU, it has shown no interest in making HEU too, despite what Ynet asserts.
Iran's suggestion of placing a ceiling on its uranium enrichment would be well in excess of its legal obligations under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which does not impose any sort of limit on uranium enrichment, and other countries which enrich uranium (such as Brazil or Argentina) have not placed similar limits on their program.
This distinction between low-enriched and highly-enriched uranium seems elementary, but the propagandists like to conflate the two, just as the like to conflate a perfectly legal, IAEA monitored nuclear energy program with a nuclear weapons program. This isn't accidental.
And just as with the previous total bullshit Daily Telegraph scare piece by Con Coughlin, this article too tries to engage in a bit of scaremongering about Iran's P-2 (or IR-2) centrifuges, suggesting there's something scary about Iran's decision to move from th 1950's technology of the P1 to the 1960's technology of the P2 centrifuges.
By the end of the article, the assertion that Iran is making warheads essentially falls apart. Ynet is left speculating about how the US wants Iran to give up enrichment supposedly because Iran "could" engage in "secret enrichment" -- which is a nonsense charge since Mongolia "could" be engaging in secret enrichment too, and Iran has offered to ratify the Additional Protocol which is designed to catch such covert enrichment. In fact, no country should have computer technology either since it "could be" used to "covertly" make bombs too.
If the risk of "covert enrichment" was the reason to stop countries from developing this technology, then no one should ever enrich uranium since they all could in theory covertly do so. The whole purpose of the IAEA inspections is to check for that sort of cheating, and so that's not the real reason for the US demand that Iran give up enrichment. Note that no such demand is being made on Brazil which has the same enrichment technology either.
Ynet ends up trying to mischaracterize the last IAEA report by repeating the NY TIme's lie that the report somehow condemned Iran (when in fact the report gave Iran a clean bill of health.)
All this from a country which hasn't even agreed to sign the NPT! LOL!