Iran clearly does not want nukes and has stopped enriching uranium - is not an ally of Russia - and wants security for itself and prosperity like most countries - no risk of a world war
I hope to help you see things a bit from Iran’s perspective. As we’ll see, Iran is clearly not interested in developing nukes any time soon. It has been within a fortnight of enough nuclear material to make a first crude nuke for over a year now. It would take about 6 months to make the first crude nuke it could only use in Iran. But it could have got as far as that first nuclear test by now if that was its wish.
Iran hasn’t done this. So what is it waiting for? It seems to just want to continue on the brink of making its first crude nuke but never making it. We’ll see that this actually makes sense for Iran. Anything else will make it weaker, less able to negotiate and make things worse. .
Iran has a new president who is pro negotiation with the West. They are definitely open to negotiation from their side. But in any agreement they want something that is more clear by way of guarantees than the Iran deal which lasted for a while and then US withdrew when Iran was complying with all the terms of the agreement. It’s not just Iran says that. Europe did too at the time.
Whatever happens there though, you are never at ANY risk from anything happening in the Middle East and never at any risk of a world war or nuclear war. Iran has only 3 small frigates. That is its entire navy apart from smaller patrol boats, and diesel subs (which can't get far).
And Iran is no ally of Russia. Iran doesn't want to make Russia or Putin's ideas its lodestar, it's navigation light.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Iran is
- NOT in any military alliance with Russia or NK
- NOT in any military alliance with China
- wants to negotiate with the West
- fought ISIS in Syria
- can't and doesn't want to fight a world war
- stops short of developing nukes
- like Saudi Arabia advocates for a nuke free
Middle East - one where Israel declares and
removes its nukes too
- wants economic partnerships with Europe / Russia / China / everyone
Iran doesn't want to commit to
Russia, China or the West but
rather to balance the influences
of them all
So it won't choose one lodestar to guide itself by
Can't fight a world war even if it wanted to
- only way to get outside the Middle East is with 3 frigates. Background image from:
Iran incidentally is a great place to observe the night sky
. Iran Night Sky Photography, Top Locations
The phrase "lodestar" refers to the pole star used by mariners - but it also means principles or goals or aims that a party or country is guided by.
Iran does a perpetual balancing between China, the West and Russia and tries not to be too closely aligned with any of them.
It lost a multi-billion dollar trade with Europe when the Iran deal collapse and their current president is pro West.
has a 25 year cooperation program with China Iran–China 25-year Cooperation Program - Wikipedia
close allies with Pakistan
See for example:
QUOTE For Iran, balanced collaborations with both Eastern and Western powers can enhance its geopolitical influence and economic stability.
. Iran's Balancing Act: The West, the East, and China's Influence
Iran is not an ally of Russia - they just agree not to support countries attacking the other partner
The agreement Iran just signed with Russia is just an agreement not to support a country attacking the other. It is not any kind of a military alliance.
The 20-year treaty that could be extended further covers all areas -– from trade and military cooperation to science, education and culture. It doesn’t envisage mutual assistance in case of aggression, but obliges both countries not to offer any military or other assistance to an aggressor attacking one of them.
. Russia and Iran have a troubled history despite their current alliance
Russia is neutral on Israel - it doesn't support Iran against Israel. It used to be strongly in support of Israel and moved to a more neutral stance as a result of the Ukraine war where they are fighting a country led by a Jew, Zelensky.
But Putin has close ties with Jews in Russia, was brought up neighbours to a Jewish family in St Petersburg that his family was on close terms with
. A Surprising Story Behind Putin's Love of Jews
Putin has a close connection with a rabbi often referred to as Putin's rabbi, as Wikipedia puts it:
QUOTE Because of his connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin he is sometimes called "Putin's rabbi."
There are large numbers of former USSR Jews in Israel. About 900,000 or 1.5 milion if you also add non Jewish members of Jewish households from Russia.
Of course that doesn’t by itself mean Putin supports them but he does. Putin has been a strong supporter of Israel for a long time. He shifted though during the Ukraine war. So he is no longe a super strong supporter of Israel but there is no way he’d ever be opposed to Israel.
Russia has moved towards closer to Iran. But it would NOT support Hezbollah or Hamas.
So no Russia will certainly not support Iran in any war with Israel. But it is prepared to support Iran generally with both defence and offence.
Russia and Iran were involved togther in propping up Assad's regime. There Putin's main interest was the access to the Mediteranean for his ships in the port of Tartus, also a nearby air base. With both of those now under HTS control and Russia set to leave Syria, Russia and Iran have much less in common in the area.
So it is much more now a case of a mutual military support, Iran provides weapons fro the war with Ukraine especially the shahed drones - but it won't give its longer range missiles to Russia.
The text isn't public but it's likely that under the agreement, Russia will give Iran more air defences to replace the ones that Israel destroyed in its last raid. But the Israeli F-35s destroyed all the S-300 air defences in just a single raid and from the experience of Ukraine in Russia, even if Russia replaces them all with S-400s, Israel can likely destroy them just as quickly (not likely to replace with S-500s but the F-35s can likely destroy those as quickly too). Ukraine has destroyed many S-400 systems in Ukraine, search for “S-400” in list here
. Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine
Right now Russia is very short of air defences to protect itself against Ukrainian attacks so it likely can't offer that much to Iran.
Iran also wants more advanced Russian fighter jets but those also are no match for the F-35.
QUOTE STARTS
Iran, in turn, wants sophisticated Russian weapons like long-range air defense systems and fighter jets to help fend off possible attacks by Israel. Russia has supplied Iran with S-300 air defense missile systems in the past, and there have been reports in Iranian media of potential interest in buying more advanced systems such as the S-400 and acquiring advanced Russian fighter jets.
Tehran has long hoped to obtain advanced Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets from Russia to upgrade its aging fleet that’s been hobbled by international sanctions, but only received a few Yak-130 trainer jets in 2023.
. Russia, Iran deepen defense ties as Putin and Pezeshkian sign 20-year pact
Russia would NOT help Iran to develop nukes
Russia is NOT keen on proliferation. Iran is likely to be fickle and could turn against Russia in the future. Russia knows that and so they can't have a very close alliance. Not like NATO. There is no way Russia would cooperate with Iran on nukes.
Iran is so weak now it has little leverage in any deal with the West - which could work either way, a strong deal with Trump - or a standoff with neither side wanting to close a deal
Iran is very weak so it won’t have much leverage in any deal. It has a pro West president. That could work either way. It could mean that Trump is able to get a very good deal across the line in terms of ending Iran’s nuke path and getting good trade deals. Or it could make dialogue more difficult.
. The Iran nuclear dilemma: Trump’s second-term challenge
. Iranian politicians clash over negotiations with the US
Iran will be trying to get Trump to negotiate and to get a new deal.
However, nothing dire would happen in the world if Iran did develop a nuke.
Trump is not under any pressure to make a decision - as the Iran situation is stable for now
Iran only wants nukes for a deterrent - like everyone else - except they don't even want that. They know if they get nukes that Saudi Arabia will have them first long before they do. And they don't want a nuclear armed Middle East. They like Saudi Arabia think the Middle East should be nuclear weapon free. The main obstacle there is Israel which everyone knows has nukes but won't admit that it doers making nuclear arms reduction negotiations tricky.
Then, Trump is not under any time pressure. The only reason there is any discussion about bombing the nuclear facilities is because Israel already bombed Iran and it did nothing back. Not because of anything pressing by way of actions by Iran.
Trump has plenty of time to decide. Iran has had enough enriched uranium to start making a nuke since 2023. It could easily have made its first crude nuke by now if it had started on it in 2023. But obviously doesn't want to.
As we’ll see they also agreed to stop enriching more uranium to 60% enrichment. So the situation is stable.
…. I requested the Islamic Republic of Iran to exercise restraint. Not only to exercise restraint, but also if possible, to stop increasing the stockpile of sixty percent uranium. And this request of mine was accepted by Iran.”
. Director General Briefs Board on Iran Developments, Ukraine Support, Technical Assistance and More
. Director General Briefs Board on Iran Developments, Ukraine Support, Technical Assistance and More
The first crude nuke could only be exploded underground in Iran, not much use, it would take 1 or 2 years to miniaturize it and put it in missiles. Long before they even tested their first nuke, Saudi Arabia would have its nukes. And both Saudi Arabia and Iran want a nuclear free Middle East if only Israel would join in and declare and agree to eliminate its nukes.
So Trump is NOT under pressure to make a quick decision. It is very obvious that Iran does not want to make that extra step. Also it elected a new president who is very pro working with the West. The Ayatollah has never wanted a nuke, that is clear. So this is all about positioning itself for a better deal in the future. It will be easier to talk to Iran once the Ukraine war is over. Iran has never wanted to be tied to one global power. Iran likes to balance the three main powers China, Russia and the USA.
But with the tough sanctions and with Russia in desperate need of their conventional missiles they have ended up more closely tied to Russia than they'd like.
They will be very receptive to some kind of a deal. But there is no hurry. Trump does not need to make an urgent decision.
Once he is in office, Trump's advisors will tell him it is impossible to stop Iran making nukes with military strikes. The reason is they would just dig tunnels to place their centrifuges deeper underground. Many are already too deep for military strikes.
But they will also tell him that it is clear that Iran doesn't want to make nukes.
Seems unlikely in that situation that Trump would actually authorize strikes though he might threaten the Iranians with words as is his style of negotiation to appear tough to get a deal.
Not likely to happen - but not much changes in the rest of the world if Iran and Saudi Arabia got nukes - examples of India, Pakistan and Israel
Four new nuclear powers have tested nukes since the non proliferation treaty came into force in 1970 (when I was 16), Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Back then there were only 5 nuclear powers, the US, Russia, UK, France and China, in order of their first test - the five permanent UN Security Council members.
The new ones are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea in order of their first test (with Israel it is a suspected test not in that list as it is not proven as it was a test in the deep ocean which with 1970s technology was only detected by a flash of light seen from orbit)
Nuclear tests will not destroy the world or harm humanity - we had them often several to a week when I was a child
If any country does a nuclear test now, it’s underground. That is what North Korea did with its nuclear tests, also Pakistan, and India, all their tests were underground.
But even an airburst doesn’t do anything except very locally.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Trinity
- the world's first nuclear test
- we have had 2000+ tests
- nothing happens to the world
- nuclear weapons are nothing like as powerfulas most think.
- all the tests since 1980 are also underground.
Photo: Trinity Site
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
North Korea tested its nukes somewhere inside this mountain.
The rest of the world detected it as a small tremor nobody could feel and sensitive measurements of a few harmless atoms of radioactive isotopes that escaped.
Background graphic: Punggye-ri nuclear test site, North Korea (on Bing Maps)
See: Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site
Nuclear tests are harmless - if anyone tells you that you can be harmed by a nuclear test in Iran they don't have a clue.
When I was a kid through to my undergraduate years, in the 60s and 70s, on average someone somewhere in the world was testing a nuke every week.
See graphic.
The year with most tests was 1961 with 140 tests or nearly 3 tests per week.
India's first nuclear test was in 1974.
This shows where the tests happened. The black dot in the south Pacific is the location of the Vela incident which may be an Israeli test.
The otehr colours are:
red: Russia/Soviet Union
blue: France
light blue: United States
violet: Britain
yellow: China
orange: India
brown: Pakistan
green: North Korea
light green (territories exposed to nuclear bombs).
Since the 1970s we've also had
Pakistan and North Korea test nukes and join the list of nuclear weapon states.
Ukraine give up its nukes, also
South Africa and Libya give up their programs which were on the path to develop nukes.
Mexico also gave up its early plans to develop nukes.
Israel isn't in the list since it got the technology from its allies along with their nuclear test results - unless one surprisingly sophisticated South Africa test was by Israel. If so that was in 1979. It's not included in the list as it’s not confirmed but it’s hard to see what else it could be.
When India, Pakistan and Israel got their nukes for the first time, very little happened.
Examples of countries that gave up nukes before they developed them - Libya, Ukraine, South Africa and Mexico - the examples of Libya and Ukraine will make Iran cautious
When South Africa and Mexico gave up their nukes program it worked out fine for them.
However it was a different picture for Libya and Ukraine.
Libya stopped its nuclear weapons program in response to international pressure.
Soon after they were invaded by the US and others.
This is somewhat discouraging to other countries that want to give up their nuclear program like NK and Iran. Will they be invaded if they give up their program?
A similar thing happened when Ukraine handed back its nukes to Russia. Only 2 years after they got rid of the last of their stockpiles of highly enriched uranium in 2012, Russia invaded and took Crimea.
This too must be discouraging for Iran and NK.
Iran wants to stop its nukes program but in exchange for other forms of security and dropping sanctions
I hope this can help you to can see why Iran and NK are cautious and want strong guarantees they can really trust if they give up their nuclear program, or in case of Iran don't even start on it.
Iran does seem to want to stop its nuclear program and it is militarily far stronger than Libya. It’s already had the Iran deal which lasted for a number of years.
But I think it helps scared people to understand their point of view. They are not mad. They have reasons to be cautious about giving up nukes. So you shouldn’t read much into their caution in any future negotiations it doesn’t mean they are insincere, just that they have paid attention to the history of previous times countries have given up nukes and it’s not always gone well for the government of the country concerned.
This is especially so because Iran had extensive negotiations before which led to the Iran deal. They kept to their commitments. It’s not just Iran says so, Europe also agrees. But the US withdrew from the deal.
So if they agree some new deal with Trump - how do they know that a future US president won’t withdraw from that deal too?
That is their basic quandry. Trump could give them stronger guarantees by passing legislation in Congress binding a future president but that is often hard to do.
Here is an interview with their new pro Western president of Iran.
Are you willing to have direct, open talks with washington and with president Trump?
The problem we have is not in dialogue but it is in the commitments that arise from talk and dialogue.
We held talks with five plus one. Lengthy talks.
We upheld all of the commitments that we had to commit to, but unfortunately it was the other party that did not live up to its promises and obligations.
Israel and the united states are beginning to talk about whether a military strike
against iran might be necessary to stops it nuclear program.
If that were to happen what would Iran's reaction be?
Naturally we will react to any action. We do not fear war, but we do not seek it.
Do you think an attack against iran is likely given the circumstances?
I strongly hope this will not transpire because it will be to the detriment of all of the actors, not merely us.
I expect Trump’s generals to advise against an attack because they would not be able to destroy the actual already enriched nuclear material and it wouldn’t be hard for Iran to rebuild buried deeper indeed they already have deeply buried nuclear facilities that would be hard to destroy.
He might threaten to do it but only as a way of putting pressure on Iran.
He could do it - if so likely responses are more missiles fired at Israel or blocking shipping at the Hormuz strait.
What happens on remote possibility they develop a nuke - ostracized from the world and its main Muslim rival in the Middle East Saudi Arabia gets its nukes first - and Israeli sabotage
As to what happens if they develop a nuke, a better example would be when North Korea got the bomb. Iran would be ostracised from the rest of the world, almost everyone would join in sanctions against them (not new to Iran) and there would be a lot of political pressure to stop and reverse it.
In the case of Iran then for sure Israel would do sabotage operations. Israel has done numerous sabotage attempts.
Israel has often sabotaged Iran's nuclear program. Here is a timeline of those activities.
. Israeli Sabotage of Iran’s Nuclear Program
It started with the Stuxnet computer virus in 2010 which destroyed hundreds of its concentrating centrifuges by getting them to spin so fast they tore themselves apart.
This is a recent revelation that Israel supplied Iran with "a platform for centrifuges" with explosions in them, not unlike the Stuxnet virus attack.
QUOTE STARTS
Israel supplied Iran with centrifuge platforms containing explosives for its nuclear enrichment program, a top Iranian official has acknowledged for the first time, underscoring the sophistication of sabotage programs targeting the Islamic Republic.
The comments by Mohammad Javad Zarif, a former foreign minister who serves as vice president for strategic affairs for reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, appear aimed at explaining to the country’s disaffected public the challenges Iran’s government faces under crushing Western sanctions over the program.
...
“This is part of the damage of sanctions, that you are forced to receive (purchases) through multiple dealers instead of buying from a factory directly,” Zarif said. “If the Zionist regime can infiltrate one of the dealers, then it can do anything and install anything.”
He added: “For instance, our friends at the Atomic Energy Organization (of Iran) had purchased a platform for centrifuges in which (the Israelis) had installed explosive material.”
. Israel supplied Iran with centrifuge platforms containing explosives, top official acknowledges
It's possible the US might do long range strikes. They don't do that for North Korea because NK has artillery very close to Seoul and there are many Americans also in Seoul (and a Trump hotel).
With Iran then it can only hit Israel with intermediate range missiles. Iran does have Hezbollah within artillery range of Israel but Hezbollah is close to being eliminated.
That's the only reason it is even discussed for Iran. But it still seems highly unlikely the US gets involved.
If it did then it would mean nothing for the rest of the world and even in the Middle East they would only do it if they judged that Iran is so weak it couldn't respond effectively.
But they would not go to war with Iran.
Unlike Libya and more like NK for different reasons, there is no way that the US and Israel can invade Iran. It's too strong militarily for that and has huge advantages because of its geography.
The Iranian government is unpopular. But almost nobody in Iran would welcome the US military (though they are very friendly with Americans on a personal level and there are large numbers of Iranians in the USA).
Though far weaker than Israel it is far stronger than Libya was and has natural advantages meaning an invasion could never succeed. But it can be hit by strikes. If it is, it's main response is that it can cut off the Hormuz strait to shipping between the Persian gulf and the gulf of Oman.
That would be a worst case probably - US strikes on Iran and Iran hijacking ships again and blocking the Hormuz strait. As well as attacks on shipping in the Red Sea by the Houthi rebels and some greatly scaled down strikes towards Israel with missiles nearly all shot down. This would be before the nuke or after they developed it but before they can miniaturize it.
But nobody wants that and the US knows very well that Iran can do that.
Iran doesn't have a nuke so couldn't use one if attacked. It couldn't develop a nuke in less than 6 months and it would be 1 or 2 years before it can fit in a missile. That is the very reason it is even something to discuss.
If Trump did allow Israel to bomb their nuclear facilities, Iran would likely respond by cutting off the Hormuz strait to shipping. It doesn't have nukes and doesn't want nukes. But it's not likely that Trump does do that, given how weak Iran is and that Iran's new president is keen to negotiate with the West. Trump's first priority is likely to end the war in Ukraine. That then would make it far easier to negotiate with Iran.
Seems unlikely an attack on the facilities would work either. Surely they have the already enriched nuclear material stored deep underground safe from attack, and likely enough centrifuges to continue enriching too.
Iran can’t develop a nuke in a week.
Iran does have weapons inspectors - and no good options for Iran if it gets the nuke
Also Iran DOES have weapons inspectors. It shows no interest in developing a nuke. It wants dialogue with the West. It's paused enrichment at 60%. It has enough material to make its first crude bomb which would take around six months - one it can only explode in Iran.
There are no good options for Iran if it gets the nuke. It doesn't want that. But it is also understandable that they are cautious about agreements to give up the option to develop a nuke too.
So for now they are resolving this by keeping in a limbo state where they could develop a nuke but don't.
The worst case after that is a nuke armed Middle East with Saudi Arabia and Iran both with nukes and Israel surely would acknowledge publicly it has nukes.
But nobody wants that, least of all Iran,
It is not a nuclear war and would never involve attacks on any country outside the Middle East.
Iran doesn’t want to step into that future of more exchanges with the US and Israel - it has the door open for negotations and Europe also is keen to resume trade with Iran
But Iran doesn't want to step into that future, is very very clear. It is leaving the door open for negotiations. It's main concerns will be to get adequate security guarantees if it gives up on its programs. Also to get the sanctions lifted and to return to normal relations with Europe.
Under the Iran deal Europe had normal trading relationships with Europe. Both Iran and Europe lost a multi-billion dollar trade in such things as civilian aircraft for instance. France lost a multi-billion dollar contract to sell aircraft to Iran when Trump blocked the Iran deal and used the power of the dollar to stop all European trade with Iran.
Europe is very keen to resume trade. The US never did much trade with Iran.
These are some of the deals Europe lost when Trump withdrew from the Iran deal.
QUOTE STARTS
* Total (French) signed a deal worth up to $5bn to help Iran develop the world's largest gas field, South Pars. Total now plans to unwind those operations by November unless the US grants it a waiver
* Norway's Saga Energy signed a $3bn deal to build solar power plants
* Airbus clinched a deal to sell 100 jets to IranAir
* European turboprop maker ATR (an Airbus-Leonardo partnership) agreed to sell 20 planes to Iran
* Danish oil tanker operators Maersk and Torm are now refusing any new contracts with Iran; Maersk is also the world's biggest operator of container ships
* Germany's Siemens signed contracts to upgrade Iran's railways and re-equip 50 locomotives
* Italy's state rail firm FS signed a $1.4bn deal to build a high-speed railway between Qom and Arak
* France's Renault signed a joint venture deal, including an engineering centre and a production plant, to boost Renault's production capacity in Iran to 350,000 vehicles a year
It also exported to Europe, from that same link, exports €10.8bn (£9.5bn; $12.9bn), and imports €10.1bn in 2017.
So Europe and Iran have strong commercial incentives to resume trading.
North Korea already has nukes and doesnt’ use them - countries never use nukes because whatever happens - nukes would always make it worse for the country that uses the nukes
Also remember North Korea already has nukes but it doesn't use them.
The reason countries don't use nukes is because they always will make things worse for them, there aren't any benefits. It's not like they have gains and losses and a calculus about whether the gains outweigh the losses. They only have losses.
Iran does have conventional missiles but it does not have nukes. USA and Israel are not mad.
Iran has been on the brink of having enough Uranium hexafluoride gas to make a nuke since 2023 but they haven't moved to the next step of making one which would take 6 months.
Nobody gets nukes to use them. They get them to stop other people invading them.
Iran isn't mad either indeed Iran like Saudi Arabia wants a nuclear weapon free Middle East.
Iran’s nuclear material is just in the form of a very hot heavy gas that turns solid when cool
Their nuclear material is in the form of a gas called Uranium hexafluoride which turns solid when cooled to below 56.5 C. This photo shows a vial of Uranium hexafluoride gas turning solid as it cools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride#Physical_properties
Iran's uranium hexafluoride is 60% enriched with Uranium 238. They could turn it into weapons grade Uranium Hexafluoride in a week using centrifuges. But that is NOT A NUKE. You can't make a nuke from uranium hexafluoride.
Iran’s six months period is to get as far as a crude nuke that likely weighs about 4 metric tons and can only be used in a test in Iran itself - but Iran is clearly not interested in starting on this path
It takes six months to get from the material they have to their first nuke. They then have to test it. Only after the test they then can start working on miniaturizing it. Until then the only way to get it to anywhere else would be to carry a big heavy bomb in a heavy bomber like the US did for Hiroshima and Nagasaki which is easy to shoot down in a modern war. That is what the 1 to 2 years is about. The Hiroshima bomb weighed 9000 pounds or 4 metric tons - gives you an idea of how heavy a crude first nuke weighs.
Iran have been at 1 week away from having enough nuclear material for a nuke since 2023. They have promised the IAEA chief weapons inspector not to do any more 60% enriched Uranium either.
Also, nobody gets nukes to use them. They get them to stop other people invading them.
Iran isn't mad either indeed Iran like Saudi Arabia wants a nuclear weapon free Middle East.
Nukes far less destructive than most realize - was one nuke going off somewhere in the world every week when I was a teenager
And nukes are likely far less destructive than you realize. When I was a teenager, someone was exploding a test nuke somewhere in the world roughly once every week.
The airbursts especially don't even leave much radioactivity, especially hydrogen bombs. The biggest nuclear bomb ever exploded produced so little radioactivity, as an air burst hydrogen bomb, that they had technicians safely visiting the site of the explosion 2 hours later.
They don't have ICBMs. Longest range 2000 km. Also it would take many nuclear tests before they have a nuke they can place in a ballistic missile, typically 1 to 2 years of tests. And they are so far from Israel they can only get a nuke there in a ballistic missile.
And remember nukes ALWAYS MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THE COUNTRY THAT USES THEM. Iran can't get out of some problem by using a nuke. Nor can Israel.
Iran continues to get nuclear inspections and they confirm that the nuclear material is only enriched to 60% and in November, Iran on request has also agreed not to enrich any more material to 60%.
It is typically several tests over a period of 1 to 2 years from the first crude nuke to one that can fit in a missile.
The new president of Iran is keen on working closer with the West. The Ayatollah has the real power but the president has an influence too.
Iran has been at a point where it could start work on a nuke for at least since 2023. If it wanted a nuke it would have done its first test months ago. But Iran like Saudi Arabia has always wanted a nuclear free Middle EAst and Saudi Arabia, a rival of Iran, would get advanced nukes within weeks through its associations with Pakistan whose program it bankrolled, as soon as Iran started on its six months path to the first crude nuke.
Rather it's clear that Iran does this just for leverage in future talks with the West. It doesn't want to become a rogue nation like North Korea and it doesn't want the Middle East to have nuclear proliferation for the same reasons nobody else in the area wants that. What it really wants is for Israel to give up its nukes but it knows that won't happen any time soon.
Iran has no military interest in countries outside the Middle East and there are numerous wars in the Middle East and none of them expand outside of it.
Iran has agreed to stop enriching more uranium at 60%
QUOTE “It is clear that the accumulation of enriched uranium at very high levels has been a matter of concern for many around the world. And this is why I requested the Islamic Republic of Iran to exercise restraint. Not only to exercise restraint, but also if possible, to stop increasing the stockpile of sixty percent uranium. And this request of mine was accepted by Iran.”
. Director General Briefs Board on Iran Developments, Ukraine Support, Technical Assistance and More
Also if there was a nuclear test anywhere in the world we'd soon know, it doesn't take long for them to detect it and announce it to the world.
There was a gap of time when the weapons inspectors didn't get in to Iran and then after that they found some particles of uranium of human origin outside of the declared sites. So there's a discrepancy here but it may well just be contaminated equipment.
QUOTE STARTS
Regarding the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, you have before you my latest report on verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).
Following my last report, Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched up to 20% and up to 60% U-235 continued to increase.
However, during the high-level meetings between the Agency and Iran in Tehran on 14 November 2024, the possibility of Iran not further expanding its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% U-235 was discussed, including technical verification measures necessary for the Agency to confirm this, if implemented. On 16 November 2024, the Agency verified at Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and at Fuel Enrichment Plant that Iran had begun implementation of preparatory measures aimed at stopping the increase of its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% U-235. Exchanges between the Agency and Iran on this matter are expected to continue.
It has been almost three years and nine months since Iran stopped implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA, including provisionally applying its Additional Protocol and therefore it is also over three and a half years since the Agency was able to conduct complementary access in Iran. Consequently, the Agency has lost continuity of knowledge in relation to the production and inventory of centrifuges, rotors and bellows, heavy water and uranium ore concentrate.
You also have before you my report on the NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran says it has declared all nuclear material, activities and locations required under its NPT Safeguards Agreement. However, this statement is inconsistent with the Agency’s findings of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at undeclared locations in Iran. The Agency needs to know the current location(s) of the nuclear material and/or of contaminated equipment involved. Iran still is not implementing modified Code 3.1, which is a legal obligation for Iran, having stated it had suspended such implementation. These outstanding safeguards issues stem from Iran’s obligations under its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and need to be resolved for the Agency to be able to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
. IAEA Director General's Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors
Also to answer why it is enriching Uranium, Iran would say it is for medical use to make medical radioisotopes. Iran is a major exporter of those. But in reality it is probably to try to have a strong position on its side to negotiate with in future negotiations with the West. Probably the Ayatollah calculates that the closer it is to being able to make a nuke the better the deal he can get in future negotiations.
It is not actually totally implausible that this could be for medicine except that its small production facility would need to be scaled up hugely to use so much 60% enriched Uranium.
It hasn't yet enriched to 90% which makes no sense for medicine. 60% enriched uranium however is useful for making molybdenum 99, a medical isotope. Ukraine claims this is its aim. To back this claim up, it has converted some of its highly enriched Uranium into targets to bombard to make molybdenum 99.
However this is implausible as its real objective as it already has enough to last its small molybdenum 99 facility for a very long time.
Also most of the rest of the world has moved to using low enriched uranium for molybdenum 99 production. Only one facility in Belgium still uses High Enriched Uranium for making medical isotopes. Many medical facilities are now even making it from natural uranium. They are doing this for non proliferation reasons.
It could actually make a rather large low yield nuke with the 60% uranium it has already - enough for the first underground test within 6 months, to establish itself as a nuclear power, and it could enrich up to 90% anyway within days. But it is in gas form - and some converted to oxide - and they are not even on step 1 towards trying to make it into a nuke.
Details here, written in 2022 but not much has changed except that Iran has more 60% enriched uranium than in 2022.
. Entering Dangerous, Uncharted Waters: Iran’s 60 Percent Highly Enriched Uranium
IRAN AS LONG TERM ADVOCATES FOR A MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE - IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE IRANIAN PERSPECTIVE
But in addition Iran are strongly in favour of a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone and have tried to get one established since 1974, so they are not likely to rush to make nukes especially since their arch rival Saudi Arabia would beat them to it, would be able to make one within weeks when it would take them two years. Saudi Arabia doesn't want a nuke either - Saudi Arabia supports the Treaty on total prohibition of nukes.
It's important to understand how they themselves think about it before leaping to conclusions that they want to rush into making a nuke - that is very far from the truth, it would not beneift them to have nukes. It would go against their long term goals for the middle East. It wants to pressurize Israel to give up on nukes. Actually developing nukes themsleves, if they go all the way until they have them, is not going to help there.
This is the perspective of Iran’s permanent representative to the UN, who was also involved in negotiating the Iran deal,
Ravanchi: Iran was the first country back in 1974 to initiate a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly calling for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Iran has also been observing its International obligations based on the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty), so Iran is in good standing in terms of its respect for international law. We are going to have the opportunity in January 2021 to discuss different aspects of the NPT within the review mechanism. Definitely, Iran and other non-nuclear-weapon states will stress the fact that nuclear-weapon states have not been up to their obligations based on the relevant provision of the NPT.
Another point is in regard to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone and free from other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. As you know for the last couple of years, the UN General Assembly has been seized of this matter. Last year we had the first conference on this important issue. But unfortunately, Israel, with a known stockpile of nuclear warheads, has not shown any interest to join the effort to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. I believe the next NPT review conference is also a good opportunity for all member states to call on the Israeli regime to join others in putting all of their unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under the supervision of the IAEA.
Israel has a policy of not saying that they have nukes, even though everyone knows they do, and their nukes are not under the supervision of the IAEA - nobody else is inspecting them.
From the 1980s onwards details emerged of the Israeli nuclear program. Israel developed their nukes with the help of Europe (France and the UK also some help from Norway and probably had direct access to the data on the French nuclear tests) and as a result never had to test them - though there is some suspicion that a nuke that was exploded by South Africa may have been an Israeli test as it seemed to be beyond the capabilites of the South Africans who only developed a few large nukes, relatively crude, before eventually going nuclear free.
This Vela test seems to have been a rather clean miniaturized nuke fired from an artillery shell. It is not easy to miniaturize a nuke to the extent that it fits inside an artillery shell and it should have been well beyond South Africa’s capability - so ths may be a clandestine Israeli test
For more about all this background, Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia
Iran want the Israeli nuclear program to be inspected by the IAEA inspectors so that the world knows what they have.
. Explaining Iran’s Nuclear Position: An Interview With Iranian Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi
SAUDI ARABIA - WOULD GET A NUKE EASILY - SAUDI ARABIA WANT A NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE WORLD BUT WOULD BUILD NUKES IN RESPONSE IF IRAN DID
It is not at all certain they will want to make a nuke. After all as soon as they start developing a nuclear bomb their Middle East rival / enemy Saudi Arabia will too and then it is much harder to achieve the Iranian long term goal of a Middle East nuclear weapons free zone if it is achievable at all
Saudi Arabia can make nukes quickly through its connections with Pakistan whose nuclera program they financed can probably make its first nuclear bomb in a few weeks and would easily beat Iran on this Iran doesn't want this to happen.
Saudi Arabia doesn't want nukes either. It supports the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. But it hasn't signed and ratified it presumably because of Iran.
. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Simple answers to questions about Iran
Can Iran attack the US?
No it can't and won't. But many are scared because they don't understand
Does Iran have a nuclear bomb?
No Iran does not have a nuclear bomb
It has nuclear power stations but not a bomb
Iran has made its missiles so they can't get as far as the US
Iran can't attack the US. Iran can attack US soldiers in the Middle East. But Iran doesn't want to do battles with the US because it would lose them.
Iran can't attack the US
Iran can attack US soldiers in the Middle East but would lose any battles
Iran can attack in other ways though, e.g. oil refineries
A big war with Iran is not possible. It is a big strong country as big as western Europe and 80 million people. A big war with Iran would be as big as the Vietnam war.
Trump does not want a war like that because he promised to remove US troops and stop big wars like that.
Is Iran very strong? What about NATO?
Yes. Very big. Very strong. It has weapons better than Pakistan which is a strong country
NATO is much stronger than Iran but they don't want to fight such a strong country
Is the US or Iran strongest?
USA is the strongest country in the world, stronger even than China. Iran can't win a fight with the USA. But Iran can stop the USA invading it.
Is WW3 possible, and how is Iran going to respond to the USA?
WW3 is not possible
Does Iran have a big army?
Iran has a big army
A big army with high technology and experienced in battle.
What about WW3?
It does not want WW3.
Iran has 80 million ordinary people like us. They don't want war
And Iran can't attack the US
Iran also has drones and helicopters.
The iranian subs are deisel and can't get to the US.
Iran doesn't have nuclear subs
The US equipment is higher quality - a lot higher quality
More details here: Comparison Results of World Military Strengths
So does it mean war?
No
Though the US is stronger, it is not easy to invade a country.
It is much easier to defend against invasion than to invade
[Shortened version of my: BLOG: Simple answers to why we don't risk WWIII because of Iran and the US after the Soliemani attack, most still applies today]
Iran can’t start any kind of a world war - no force projection beyond the Middle East
First Iran and the Middle East.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Wars in the Middle East always STAY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Example: 1991: Gulf war to liberate Kuwait after invasion by Iraq.
UK’s biggest foreign war since WW2. ALL THESE COUNTRIES fought Iraq - NEVER COULD BE A WORLD WAR.
Russia and China neutral.
Most fighting here: (arrow to Kuwait).
UK sent 35,000 soldiers and 13,000 vehicles.
Numbers of soldiers and vehicles from here: Gulf War | National Army Museum
Map of combatants from here: File:Coalition of the Gulf War vs Iraq.svg - Wikimedia Commons
Map of Iraq and Kuwait from here: Gulf War | National Army Museum
Background oil painting: British infantry vehicles advancing, Iraq, 1991 Oil on board by Captain Jonathan Wade, Royal Highland Fusiliers, 1992.
Imperial war museum IWM Non-Commercial Licence
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Iran doesn't have ICBM capabilities- it can put satellites into orbit
- but has not mastered ICBM re-entry
Iran hasn't even tried.
- Ballistic missiles are hypersonic.
- ICBMs enter at Mach 17+.
This is vastly more challenging to design for.
Iran's main aim is a CEASEFIRE
Russia is NOT an ally of Iran and will stay out of any fight with Israel.
Iranian militants have killed opponents with car bombs globally but it DOES NOT do ISIS / Al Qaeda type terrorism - it FOUGHT ISIS in Syria.
There is simply NO WAY that Iran can bring a war to UK or US or anywhere outside the Middle East.
Iran does NOT have nukes and nukes CAN'T WIN WARS.
Israel is still out of range for 1/3 of Iran
Iran has only 3 frigates and they would take 6 days to reach UK at maximum speed - NO CHANCE OF ATTACKING THE UK OR USA
Iran and its proxies can't start a world war even if they wanted to which they don't. Iran's longer range missiles have only a bit more range than is needed to get from the closest place in Iran to Israel (which is nearly 1000 km) - indeed even their very longest distance missile with a range of 2000 km can't reach Israel from the far side of Iran from Israel.
Iran doesn’t have nuclear subs and its longest range force projection is with 3 frigates with a range of 9000 km at 28 km / h - would take over 6 days to get to the USA at their faster speed needing more refueling - obviously can’t attack the UK or US
They also don't have nuclear subs, their diesel subs would need to be refueled many times to get to e.g. the UK <and are not silent. They only have patrol boats and frigates not destroyers. Their biggest ships are three frigates with a range of 9000 km at 28 km / h and can reach a speed of up to 72 km/h if using gas turbines
They used to have four until the US sunk one of them. The US could surely sink the rest if it wanted to.
. Alvand-class frigate - Wikipedia
The sea distance is : 6858 nautical miles or around 12,000 km from London to Bandar Abbas on the strait of Hormuz.
. Port of London, United Kingdom to Bandar Abbas, Iran sea route and distance
This means they couldn't get to the UK without refueling and at a sea distance of about 12,000 km it would take them. (12,000/78)/24 or over 6 days to get from Iran to UK at their fastest speed with frequent refueling.
It is very obvious that Iran can't invade anywhere in Europe. And it can't invade overland either. And it can't send missiles to the US or UK.
Russia is neutral on Iran / Israel. Israel is neutral on Russia / Ukraine - it just supplies the missiles for financial reasons, it is a miltiary trade partner not an ally.
Also Iran wouldn't do anything like 9/11 and its proxies are militant organizations - they are only loosely connected with Hamas which they did support with military supplies but Hamas are sunni and Iran is Shia.
In more detail.
Iran and its proxies don't do attacks on ordinary civilians in other countries like 9/11. They only focus on Israel. Iran joined the coalition fighting against ISIS in Syria.
Hezbollah don't deliberately target civilians or take hostages or use torture either - they are more of a militant group but are classified as a terrorist group mainly because of a couple of high profile car bombings. They are accused of bomb plots to assassinate opponents in many other countries but not of anything like 9/11. Iran itself sees its militant groups as liberation groups to liberate from Israeli oppression.
So it is very different from ISIS, or Al Qaeda which deliberately sponsored international terror.
. Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia
Hamas' attacks on civilians in Israel were done without Iranian approval or knowledge. Iranian leaders were surprised by them.
QUOTE STARTS
The U.S. has intelligence indicating senior Iranian officials were surprised by the Hamas-led terror attack on Israel, according to multiple American officials familiar with the matter, preliminarily suggesting Tehran was not directly involved the launch of the deadly Oct. 7 assault.
While analysis and collection are continuing and additional information may arise to contradict the initial assessments, officials briefed on the intelligence say key Iranian officials who would normally be aware of operations in the region appeared to be unaware the attacks were taking place.
. U.S. intelligence indicates Iranian officials surprised by Hamas attack on Israel
Iran called for a ceasefire early on. Iran was one of the countries in the UN voting on 27th October 2023 for an immediate humanitarian pause leading to a ceasefire.
They continue to call for a ceasefire today. They support Hezbollah but Hezbollah has constantly also called for a ceasefire in Gaza strip.
Their attacks on Israel were to respond to show themselves as strong after Israel assassinated many leaders of Iranian sponsored militant groups but Iran doesn't want a war with Israel and is still continuously calling for a ceasefire in Gaza Strip.
And anyway it is impossible to have something like 9/11 again because of heightened air security.
Also 9/11 didn't start a world war, it couldn't. It did lead to the US invoking NATO article 5 but that is very much misunderstood. It is purely defensive, NATO does whatever it needs to do to defend itself. It does NOT mention nukes and it does not commit NATO to any particular type of response.
In this case it led to the NATO countries joining together to protect NATO from terrrosim and to hunt down the originators of 9/11.
I have a section about how article 5 is defensive only in my blog post here:
Then after Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah, Lebanon elected a new president, Lebanese Armed Forces chief Joseph Aoun
“A new phase in the history of Lebanon begins today,” he told the chamber, adding that he would call for “quick parliamentary consultations” on naming a new prime minister.
Aoun also vowed to ensure that the state would have “a monopoly” on the right to carry arms, referring to the Hezbollah terror group’s extensive arsenal, which he had not commented on publicly as commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces.
. Lebanon army chief elected president, drawing Israeli hopes for postwar stability
So it looks as though Lebanon is going to disarm Hezbollah. Their prime minister has started the process.
In his statement Friday, Mikati said: “We are in a new phase — in this new phase, we will start with south Lebanon and south Litani specifically in order to pull weapons so that the state can be present across Lebanese territory.”
. Lebanon’s PM vows to disarm country’s south after new president threatens Hezbollah
So Iran no longer has Hezbollah as an effective fighting force and it may be eliminated altogether. It’s also lost Syria since HTS liberated the Assad regime which was supported by Iran and Russia.
So Iran now only has the Houthis as their main proxy. Iran and its proxies were never able to start a world war even if they wanted to which they don't, as their missiles have only a bit more range than is needed to get from Iran to Israel indeed their longest distance missile can't even reach Israel from the far side of Iran from Israel.
. Absolutely no possibility of the USA or the UK hit by missiles from ANYTHING in the Middle East
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Why there is absolutely no possibility of the US being hit as a result of ANYTHING that goes on in the Middle East.
Israel has invaded Lebanon several times including in 2006. The US is not likely to get involved except shooting incoming missiles.i
Nobody in the Middle East opposed to the US or Israel is even able to fire weapons to another continent. The longest range of the Iranian missiles is 2000 km. They need most of that range just to reach Israel from Iran.
An intercontinental missile is 5,500 km. The shortest distance from Iran to the US is far more even than that.
Why there is NO RISK EVER of a world war from yet one more conflict in the Middle East of many (basic geography few seem to know on social media).
Shortest distance from Iran to USA 8,400+ km.
Maximum range for Iran's missiles:2000 km.
Iran is NOT able to attack the US.
The US has been involved in many conflicts in the Middle East including its invasion of Iraq and the Gulf war.
These do NOT lead to world wars and CAN’T.
Russia: neutral to Israel and Hezbollah / Hamas
China: no interest in Israel just oil from Middle East
Israel: neutral to Russia and Ukraine.
This time the US is NOT involved except to protect Israel from incoming missiles.
Israel and Iran do NOT want to fight each other either - both trying to give an appearance of strength without provoking an increase in conflict.
The UK is quite closely involved because the UK actually was in charge of Palestine before it split into Israel and Palestine.
It handed it over to the international community when things got too difficult for them to manage.
The US then got historically involved.
So both countries have a strong historical connection and a level of commitment.
The UK doesn't have the close connection the US has not any more.
But it does support Israel.
It sends some military supplies and it is involved in shooting down missiles headed for Israel.
It is very much on Israel's side. Mind you not many are on Iran's side. The Arab countries in the area are on Israel's side if anything. E.g. Jordan also shot down missiles headed for Israel.
Jordan doesn't want to take sides but it shot them down because they flew over their own territory. And if forced to decide it will go with Israel.
So, here “Involves the UK” does NOT mean that Iran can hit the UK. It can’t, the UK is well out of range of Iran.
The Falklands war involved the UK so did the Iraq war. In both cases there was NO RISK of bombs falling in the UK or missiles or shells fired at the UK.
Iran is not even able to hit the UK.
See aso
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.