Iran’s nuclear programme traces its origins back to the reign of the shah, when it was initiated with significant assistance from the US. The programme’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 programme 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 Ruhollah Khomeini led to an abrupt halt in Iran’s nuclear programme. Khomeini justified the cessation by claiming that it 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 programme. This time, it sought assistance from Russia and Pakistan. The programme underwent a dramatic shift under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini as the “Supreme Leader”.
Khamenei’s approach to the nuclear programme marked a significant departure from previous policies. Under his leadership, the nuclear programme 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 nationalisation of oil, Khamenei framed the programme 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 nationalise 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 programme 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.
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 programme 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 programme. 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 normalised 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 programme, 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 programme and enrichment – as demanded by the United States – would be tantamount to admitting defeat. His rhetoric, which had built the nuclear programme 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 programme 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 programme 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 prioritise 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.
[See also: Trump’s war without honour]
Content from our partners
Related
