Posted on 06/20/2025 9:14:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
An Iranian politician sits on a sofa giving an interview about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Why should Iran not have a nuclear weapon when France, the UK and the US all have nuclear weapons? What is the difference between our nations?” The politician goes on to lay out Iran’s regional intellectual and cultural superiority, citing an illustrious history going back centuries, explicitly linking Iranian exceptionalism with the issue of nuclear power. You’d be forgiven for thinking that this Iranian politician was an official of the Islamic Republic. It was the Shah and the year was 1973.
The desire for a nuclear weapon in Iran transcends political parties, generations (although Gen X, so brutalized by sanctions and a blanket lack of hope, seemingly couldn’t care less) and pro- or anti-regime sentiment. It is linked to Iran’s sense of itself as the preeminent regional power, be that intellectually, politically or culturally.
This strain of thinking has been a feature of Iran since time immemorial, peaking perhaps in the 17th century with the majestic courts and wide reaching empire of the Safavids, patrons of the arts and builders on a magnificent and spellbinding scale.
Listen to former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches from the mid-2000s on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and you will hear the same sentiment. And when Iran rose up in 2009 to challenge the blatantly fraudulent re-election of Ahmadinejad, the West pinned their hopes on two leftist revolutionary stalwarts of the Islamic Republic, Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi. At last, some sensible people, they cried, perhaps only taking a relative reading, not an absolute one. But Mousavi and Karroubi (both still detained under house arrest for their temerity in daring to challenge a rigged election) were advocates of Iran having a nuclear bomb. Neither would have yielded to Western pressure, diplomatic or economic (or even military) on this issue, so central to Iranian / Persian nationalist self-imaginings.
The desire for an Iranian nuclear weapon is not, therefore, a unique reflex of the hard-right elements of the Islamic Republic, but rather a representation of a nation’s desire that its own cultural and intellectual brilliance might have a real-world counterpart.
For too long now we’ve failed to see this. And whoever follows the Islamic Republic, or whatever ghoulish, darker, form this war forces it to assume, it is unlikely that it will seek anything other than a path to nuclear power and even weapons. For threat, as much as national pride and identity, drives a nation’s desire to possess the ultimate protection. After all, no one is bombing North Korea, are they? And this is where our neat taxonomies break down. For it is entirely possible for anti-regime elements to be supportive of Iran’s march towards nuclear power and technological advancement, not because of an ideological identification with the cultural nihilism of Khamenei, but because of something bigger than that; the nation of Iran.
And when we scratch our heads at the seeming contradictions here, we’d do well to remember that concepts of ambiguity, of the space between the private and the public self, of metaphor and symbolism are as central to Iran’s poetic traditions as they are to how people see the world around them. If you live in a repressive theocracy, a sense of an inviolable hidden self can come in handy.
Equally, if you are building a nuclear weapon and attempting to hide it, an inbuilt comfort with a divisible truth is, perhaps, a prerequisite. For in Persian poetry, a cultural backbone and the constant background in communication, half-truths and concealed realities are virtues to be embraced, not moral transgressions that bring shame. This is both a product of a Sufi and Shia culture in which truth is veiled, and a response to persecution where our words must hide the reality towards which they point.
So what, you might say. For too long, we’ve misunderstood Iran and the Islamic Republic, and the millions of Iranians who live under the horrors of a brutal klepto-theocracy. Now more than ever, our policy makers would do well to engage with these central issues of Iran’s history, identity and sense of self. It would be time not wasted, and could help us all in the long run.
What the author fails to grasp is, the idea is to install a leader who won’t pursue a nuclear weapon.
When you bomb someone, they usually get angry and want to find any and all means to defend themselves.
Then you must invade and take physical control of their government....
Was the Shah of Iran a terrorist? Was Iran a terror exporting country then.
Iran is ruled by people whose main weapon for foreign relations, is terrorism. A terror nation is one that would likely use nuclear weapons to get its way.
If North Korea & Pakistan can have nukes, anyone can have nukes.
The pursuit of military and cultural dominance has been in the history of many peoples at many times in the past. I don’t accept the author’s premise that that is what prompts the Islamic Republic to want a nuclear weapon now. Neither do I accept his premise that because the Islamicists want one the future Persians will also.
Iran is psychotic.
It is the responsibility of the Western Nations to see to it that Iran never gets a nuclear bomb , ever...unless delivered in a “Bomb Iran” context by those the Iranian government or Iranian Islamists are seeking to kill. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a cult of deception and domination.
Any government that shouts “Death to (fill in the blank)” should not have nuclear weapons.
The radical theocrats ruling Iran are not Persian poets
They are psychopaths with a consuming dedication toward expanding an empire whose moral imperative is killing every Jew on the planet….and the enslavement or death of any other humans that don’t accept their ideology
They execute homosexuals and subdue or criminalize half of their own population….women who refuse to accede to their severe morality code……even up to death.
Yeah, some national leaders lack the basic acceptable humanity to be trusted with nuclear weapons and an offensive strategy for using them in pursuit of a establishing a radical religious ideology on mankind.
regime change is not a conservative philosophy.
it is simply the opposite side of the same coin used by the central planners to make their dream economy become a reality
After being pushed, prodded and provoked maybe they will but what will stop Iran from doing a nuke is the protection of nuclear powers like China, Russia or even Pakistan.
President Trump met the military boss of Pakistan the man who really runs the country for lunch at the White House no media allowed.
Not if the normal Iranians (most of the population) take over the country.
No one worries that India has nukes, because India threatens no one. Iran under the Shah was west-oriented and our ally, so *that* Iran having a nuke would not have been the end of the world.
The ayatollahs with a nuke is a terrible idea.
Bad faith. Bad conduct. No nukes for you.
The dirty beardos who run Iran think an apocalypse will bring the Mahdi, Mohammed, or whatever out of his hole. You can’t have the understanding of MAD with those who are basically “mad”.
That’s not up to you. Get that through your thick skull
I think people are finally getting how big of a problem Iran is. Every administration, from Jimmy Carter on, has kicked this can down the road to avoid a potential WWIII event.
In the meantime, Iran has used it’s Russia backing (now China) to attack Americans, Westerners, and Israel as well as back groups doing genocide, and those who target Christians. Iran has been responsible directly for the most horrific acts in the middle east for decades. Iran has much blood on their hands, and the Oct Attack on Israel that started this conflict was sponsored by Iran.
Stopping the Nuclear program would be a nice thing for world safety. I trust Iran to comply with international law and checks at 0.0%. I trust Russia and China to remove their nuclear ambitions or capabilities at 0.0%. I believe that Iran will release Nuclear weapons, via proxies, that easily will be responsible for WWIII. That probability is close to 100% if the current ‘Mullahs’ stay in power.
If the US intervenes in the current conflict, there is a 30% chance (guess) other Islamic nations will join Iran. There is a 100% chance that China and Russia will supply weapons and support to Iran. In my opinion, the likelihood that Iran will continue with a nuclear weapons program after bombing is 100%. Bombing will delay them getting a full warhead, but it will likely increase the chances they will use it sooner.
Toughest situation that Trump has faced as POTUS internationally, IMHO.
All the cool kids have Nukes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.