Ayatollah Khamenei faces a nuclear nightmare
Iranian Supreme Leader'S Office / ZUMA Press Wire / Shutterstock
Iran's nuclear program traces its origins back to the reign of the Shah, when it was initiated with significant assistance from the United States. The program's initial focus was on peaceful nuclear technology, with early collaboration aiming to develop nuclear energy. However, as the US soon detected the possibility of military applications emerging within Iran's nuclear ambitions, Washington strongly urged Iran to abandon the path of uranium enrichment and instead focus solely on nuclear technology for energy purposes.
Many years ago, my colleague Sig Hecker and I discussed in an article for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists how Iran should have followed a path akin to South Korea, which chose nuclear technology over weapons development. South Korea is now a global leader in nuclear technology, while North Korea — on the other hand — pursued nuclear weapons, resulting in isolation, poverty, and an economy reliant on the bombastic rhetoric of its leaders.
During the Shah's rule, Iran enjoyed the support of key Western powers, particularly France and Germany, who assisted with technology and expertise. High-ranking US officials, including Henry Kissinger and even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were backing the Shah's nuclear ambitions. They, in turn, convinced the Carter administration to adopt a similar stance, leaving Iran's nuclear program relatively unchallenged. In this period, Iran's nuclear ambitions were also supported by Israel, which saw Iran as close ally.
In 1979, the Iranian Revolution fundamentally altered the country's political and nuclear trajectory. The overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini led to an abrupt halt in Iran's nuclear program. Khomeini justified the cessation by claiming that the nuclear program was a product of imperialist imposition, aimed at furthering the Shah's alliance with the West and selling 'garbage' to Iran. Yet, as often happens in political regimes, a change in leadership and national priorities can lead to a reversal of course, and that is precisely what transpired in Iran.
During the brutal eight-year war with Iraq (1980-1988), in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranian forces with little international consequence, the Iranian regime reconsidered its nuclear ambitions. As the world turned a blind eye to Iraq's chemical warfare, the Iranian leadership clandestinely resumed its nuclear program. This time, they sought assistance from Russia and Pakistan. Iran's nuclear program underwent a dramatic shift under Ayatollah Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini as the 'Supreme Leader.'
Khamenei's approach to the nuclear program marked a significant departure from previous policies. Under his leadership, the nuclear program was no longer merely a tool for regional deterrence; it became a symbol of Iranian independence and resistance to Western imperialism and Zionism. Drawing on the legacy of Iran's 1951 nationalization of oil, Khamenei framed the nuclear program as a matter of national pride and a sign of defiance against foreign domination. His rhetoric invoked Iran's right to technological advancement and self-sufficiency, paralleling the ideals of resistance against foreign intervention that had historically fueled Mosaddeq's effort to nationalize Iran's oil.
Iran's nuclear ambitions, initially viewed as dual-purpose — energy and potential military use — became increasingly intertwined with religious and political symbolism. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hand-picked by Khamenei, linked the nuclear program to the apocalyptic return of the Twelfth Imam, a central figure in Shiite eschatology. According to this narrative, Iran's nuclear progress would hasten the return of the Twelfth Imam, a figure believed to have been in occultation for over 1,300 years. This apocalyptic vision of global victory was central to Khamenei's strategic messaging.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
To bolster his regime's legitimacy, Khamenei also invested in establishing proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, and worked to maintain the Assad regime in Syria. These proxies served as strategic deterrents against Israel and the United States, creating a network of alliances and military leverage across the region. Simultaneously, the nuclear program was consistently portrayed as peaceful, with Khamenei supposedly issuing fatwas (religious decrees) purportedly forbidding nuclear weapons, even as the Iranian regime continued to enrich uranium to levels near those needed to develop the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.
Despite the regime's insistence on the peaceful nature of its nuclear pursuits, the internal contradictions of its messaging became increasingly evident. Public rhetoric, particularly more recently, frequently suggested that Iran had now the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, while simultaneously claiming that it had no military component in its nuclear program. For years, this dual posture allowed the regime to maintain a sense of strategic ambiguity, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty for both regional actors and international powers.
The combination of bluster, bluff, and strategic posturing helped Iran navigate the international community's reactions. The regime used the leverage of its regional proxies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as the survival of the Assad regime in Syria, to create a sense of invulnerability. The presence of a couple of hundreds of thousands of Iranian missiles in Syria and Lebanon further complicated the geopolitical calculus for Israel and the United States. Moreover, Iran's economic and political dealings with European countries, and its ability to secure economic concessions in return for partial restrictions on its nuclear activities, enabled it to prolong its nuclear aspirations while averting the imposition of crippling sanctions.
However, as is often the case with regimes led by dogmatic figures, the Iranian leadership missed several warning signs of a changing geopolitical landscape. The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, undermined Iran's longstanding narrative of Muslim unity against Israel. The rise of Donald Trump, whose unpredictable foreign policy shifted from attempts at negotiation to direct threats against Iran, further complicated matters. As Trump took a hardline stance, Israel became more assertive in its military operations against Iranian proxies, particularly in Lebanon, and the Assad regime's eventual decline weakened Iran's regional position.
Internally, the Iranian regime faced mounting pressure from both economic crises and popular dissent. The Iranian economy was in freefall, with inflation skyrocketing and the value of the national currency plummeting from around 40,000 tomans to nearly 100,000 tomans to the dollar. Strikes by truckers, power shortages, and the inability of the regime to provide basic services to the public highlighted the deep structural problems within the Iranian economy.
Perhaps even more troubling for Khamenei's regime was the growing domestic unrest, particularly among women who resisted the mandatory veiling law. The wave of civil disobedience led by women, coupled with increasing economic hardship, forced the regime to confront the growing cracks in its social and political foundation. Yet, Khamenei's response remained stubbornly consistent: criticism of the regime was dismissed as the work of foreign agents or 'tools' of imperialism and Zionism. This lack of self-reflection and refusal to engage with the real problems facing the nation further isolated the leadership from reality and of course from the aspirations of the Iranian people.
As international pressure mounted, Khamenei continued to insist on the importance of Iran's nuclear program, despite growing internal and external challenges. The regime's posture shifted between negotiations with the Trump administration and blustery declarations about Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon 'on demand.' Under Khamenei's guidance, discussions about a new nuclear deal were in virtual deadlock as Iran insisted on maintaining enrichment activities, and the fundamental demands of the US is for a suspension of enrichment.
For Khamenei, the prospect of 'giving up' on the nuclear program and enrichment—as demanded by the United States—would be tantamount to admitting defeat. His rhetoric, which had built the nuclear program into a cornerstone of national pride and resistance, made it almost impossible for him to back down without losing face. Yet, the path of insisting on maintaining the program could also lead to Iran's destruction, as the geopolitical situation rapidly deteriorated around him.
Khamenei now faces a dire dilemma. To abandon the nuclear program would be to accept a humiliating defeat, one that would wipe away any political and ideological legitimacy he might have. But to persist in pursuing the nuclear option could bring ruin upon Iran, with catastrophic consequences for the Iranian people and all but certainly end the clerical despotism in Iran. The only thing he and his negotiating team seem to seek is a path that allows them to declare victory by claiming they have continued their enrichment activities while in fact they have abandoned it. Following the strikes conducted against Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, will the Trump administration wish to allow them a 'face saving' exit, and will Netanyahu be willing to stop attacking what is essence a defenseless Iranian regime? The people of Iran are collateral damage to a war they never bargained for.
The only solution to Iran's nuclear crisis — and to the broader instability created by the regime's policies — is a democratic Iran. The Iranian people, particularly the brave women who have led protests against the regime, offer the greatest hope for genuine change. Iran's future should be determined by its people, not by foreign powers or by the dogmatic leadership of a failed regime.
In the short term, the international community must halt the violence against the Iranian people and support democratic voices within Iran and the Iranian diaspora. Some leading Iranian artists and activists from Inside Iran and two Iranian noble laureates have issued statement saying no to war, no to enrichment, and no to the regime. The regime's hypocrisy and brutal tactics cannot be allowed to dictate the future of the country or bring about its destruction. In the long term, the world must prioritize a strategy that aids the Iranian people in overthrowing their oppressive rulers. A democratic Iran, free from the shackles of nuclear proliferation, holds the key to peace and stability in the Middle East.
[Further reading: Trump's war without honour]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Spectator
Badenoch: Tories are ‘the adults in the room'
It is a year of two major anniversaries for the Tories. The first is the centenary of Margaret Thatcher's birth; the second is the half-centenary since she was elected leader. To mark the occasion, the think-tank Policy Exchange is laying on a series of events to commemorate the Iron Lady. Today's was a sit down interview between Thatcher's biographer, Charles Moore, and Kemi Badenoch, one of Thatcher's successors. The conversation between the pair was an engaging one, aimed at highlighting Badenoch's ability to grasp the major issues of our time. Some of her remarks were punchy: like her suggestion that the UK 'is being cut out of intelligence' on the Iran crisis 'because we cannot be trusted'. Others were familiar: her insistence that Reform is 'not serious… somebody has to be the adult in the room. We are the adults in the room, and sometimes it is not popular to be the adults in the room.' There was a hint of policy too. Badenoch confirmed she 'had looked at' Denmark's so-called 'ghetto laws', under which social housing areas with high levels of deprivation and a 'non-Western' population above 50 per cent are declared 'parallel societies'. She said she wanted something 'along the lines' of this policy, noting the disparities in population 'and so many other things that would require adjustments, but that sort of thing, yes.' Much of it was good, sensible stuff for the various attendees nodding along in the think-tank's headquarters. But the question is: was anyone listening? The room might have been crammed been full of dozens of the great-and-the-good of the British right. Yet online, the likes of GB News, Daily Express and Policy Exchange struggled to get more than 40 viewers on their respective live streams. Lord Moore made a good point when comparing Badenoch's leadership to the early days of her predecessor. Back then, in 1978, Thatcher only had to say one word on migration – 'swamped' – and the polls began to move in her favour. Now, with Reform on the right, the bar for cut-through has risen much higher. Given the current pace of politics, it will be interesting tomorrow to compare the coverage of this event to that afforded to Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick's speeches today. Badenoch and her team believe that, ultimately, their patience will be rewarded. They point to her record in being proved right on self-ID and Kneecap's funding in government; her victories in opposition by forcing Labour to U-turn on winter fuel and an inquiry into grooming gangs inquiry. Yet to seize back power after a record defeat, she will need to not merely show that the Tories are not merely the adults in the room – but ones worth listening to as well.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
British nationals evacuated from Israel as Iran conflict continues
David Lammy told the Commons that an RAF A400 had taken the group of British nationals to Cyprus on Monday, from where they will be taken to the UK, adding that more flights will follow. He also confirmed that one British national in Israel had been injured during Iranian missile attacks and had been offered consular support. Downing Street said 'around 1,000' people had requested a seat on an evacuation flight – a quarter of the 4,000 who had registered their presence in Israel or Palestine with the Foreign Office. In his statement to the Commons, Mr Lammy repeated his plea to Iran to return to the negotiating table following America's strikes on its nuclear programme. He said: 'My message for Tehran was clear, take the off ramp, dial this thing down, and negotiate with the United States seriously and immediately. 'The alternative is an even more destructive and far-reaching conflict, which could have unpredictable consequences.' He had previously urged Tehran to engage in negotiations, saying US President Donald Trump's apparent decision last week to delay US military action offered a two-week window for a diplomatic solution. On Monday, he said: 'We can and we must find a negotiated solution. The window has narrowed, but the risks of further escalation are so great and the costs so considerable for Britain and all in the region, that this is the Government's priority.' Mr Lammy's statement came after an air raid by American B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night. The Foreign Secretary told MPs it was not yet clear how far the attack had set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but said the need for a diplomatic solution remained. He added: 'Strikes cannot destroy the knowledge Iran has acquired over several decades, nor any regime ambition to deploy that knowledge to build a nuclear weapon.' Earlier, Downing Street had said that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb was a 'good thing' for the UK, but declined to comment on whether the US strikes complied with international law. Meanwhile, Israeli jets hit targets in Tehran on Monday including the security headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Evin Prison, the regime's main site for detaining political prisoners and human rights activists. In turn, Iran carried out its own strikes against cities in Israel, and sparked fears of a wider regional conflict as it accused the US of crossing 'a very big red line'. Amid the continuing conflict, the Foreign Office has also advised British nationals in Qatar to 'shelter in place' following a US security alert. Meanwhile, oil prices reached their highest level for nearly six months over fears a regional conflict could restrict supply, especially if Iran decided to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. The jump in prices prompted Mr Trump to post on his Truth Social platform: 'EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING! YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON'T DO IT!' Mr Lammy told MPs the Government was 'closely monitoring' the energy markets and urged Iran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, saying a blockade would be 'a monumental act of economic self-harm' and make reaching a diplomatic solution even harder.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Badenoch ‘looking at Danish ghetto laws' in push for ‘active integration'
Under Danish law, social housing areas with high levels of deprivation and a 'non-Western' population above 50% are declared 'parallel societies'. Such a declaration can trigger requirements to reduce the amount of social housing in an area, including through evicting residents and demolishing or turning their homes into private housing, and restrictions on who can move there. Asked whether she would consider a similar policy for the UK, Mrs Badenoch told an audience at the Policy Exchange think tank on Monday she had 'looked at it' and would be talking about it more. She said: 'I think integration is not enough. I say assimilate, I think assimilation should be the target, and if people don't assimilate, then they integrate. 'But we've had so many, so many people, so high numbers, people from lots of different places, which is not what immigration used to look like, and I think we need to move from passive to active integration.' Saying this was 'along the lines' of the Danish policy, she added: 'We need to do what works for the UK, it's not exactly the same situation, we have a much bigger population, and so many other things that would require adjustments, but that sort of thing, yes.' The Danish law is currently being challenged at the European Court of Justice by human rights groups, who argue it discriminates against people based on their ethnicity. During her appearance at the Policy Exchange event, the Conservative leader went on to say she wanted to see the state doing less, saying she did not want to see an 'active state' in areas outside policing and defence. She also argued for society to do more to prevent 'unstable' families from being formed. Asked about the role of personal responsibility in family policy, she said: 'I think that we need to start looking more at the prevention side of it. 'How do we make sure people don't start families that are unstable in the first place? I don't think that government needs to get overly involved in that. 'Society, and there is such a thing as society, needs to have some form of supporting families as well.'
