Iran has never made the decision to build a nuclear weapon, despite having at least most of the resources and capabilities it needs to do so, as far as we know. But Mr. Raisi’s death has created an opportunity for the hard-liners in the country who are far less allergic to the idea of going nuclear than the regime has been for decades.
The recent exchange of hostilities with Israel, a country with an undeclared but widely acknowledged nuclear arsenal, has provoked a change of tone in Tehran.
“We have no decision to build a nuclear bomb but should Iran’s existence be threatened, there will be no choice but to change our military doctrine,” Kamal Kharrazi, a leading adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, said on May 9.
Today, Iran has thousands of advanced centrifuges and a large stockpile of enriched uranium. This, in turn, has provoked some camps inside Iran to adopt a “might as well” argument for nuclear weaponization. If we’ve already come this far, the argument goes, then why not just go for a bomb?
Historically, Iran has felt a nuclear hedging strategy is its best defense against external aggression and invasion. And Tehran may continue to calculate that racing for a bomb would only invite more hostility, including from the United States.
Then again, an increasingly distracted and unpredictable Washington might not be in a position to react forcefully against a sudden and rapid Iranian rush for a bomb, especially if Iran chooses its moment wisely.Between the war in Gaza, a possible change in American leadership, and a domestic power vacuum that the I.R.G.C. could step into, it is not difficult to imagine a brief window in which Iran could pull out the stops and surprise the world by testing a nuclear device.
.Here are the top political news stories for today.
@L3ftWingJaguarForward2yrs2Y
Perhaps if the United States policy towards countries developing nuclear weapons was based on "What you do" not "Who you are" there would be less interest on the part of Iran on developing them.
Israel developed them without sanctions from the west. Why would Iran think that if they gave up their nuclear program Western countries would stop supporting aggression against it?
Perhaps having gone to college with Iranians who fled the repression under the Shah allows me understand Iranians mistrust of the United States.
@Tr3atyEmilyGreen2yrs2Y
There is no selectivity in thinking about a safer nation having nuclear deterrent. Same standards should apply to friends and foes. Arming Ukraine to the teeth is a dangerous proposition which could infuriate Russia. And lately Putin isn't in good mood due to massive weapon supplies to Zelensky, deadly drones and other ammunition!
@Equ4l1tyLardLibertarian2yrs2Y
If Iran has nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will want them too. What could go wrong?
@ChamoisRayConstitution2yrs2Y
Given that the US refuses to keep its word (and US political instability), I can understand why Iran might just do what it wants. On the flip side, the US could take out Iranian nuclear capability with precision strikes, and justify it under international law, but it would surely lead to a larger war. The US is somewhat stuck.
We focus most of the attention on how Iran is a threat to Israel and therefore a destabilizing force in the region. Flip the equation and, from Iran's perspective, I can see how Iran would consider Israel and the USA to be a threat to them. Israel is enacting policies that are as fundamentally extreme as those of Iran, and they are (despite recent posturing) unconditionally supported by the most powerful military force the world has even known. Although I would not welcome such a development, I cannot see why Iran wouldn't move forward with nuclear capability.
@MandrillClaraVeteran2yrs2Y
I, as an American, have absolutely no interest in not coming to a grand bargain with Iran so that we can decrease our energy in Middle East affairs and focus on shoring up America’s economy and power.
If Israel wants a war with Iran, they are free to pursue it.
@GiddyV3toRepublican2yrs2Y
I’m not sure what’s holding Iran back…
Israel won’t respond. They’re busy and disorganized.
The U.S. won’t respond (think how we avoid giving Ukraine) the weapons they need for fear of Russian nukes).
Iran has already tried using nuclear development as a bargaining chip. That hasn’t worked for them.
It seems inevitable.
Nuclear weapons serve as deterrents for aggression and facilitate negotiations on a geopolitical level.
If the West is genuinely concerned about the threat of nuclear confrontations worldwide, then the logical solution would be to disarm all nuclear weapons globally.
Making selective decisions about which countries are allowed to possess nuclear weapons and which are not does not contribute to the stability of the world.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
