By Matt Underwood Tehran will restore its nuclear program, Iranian atomic chief vows, and frankly, did anyone really think otherwise? It’s almost as if we’re stuck in a loop, aren’t we? They’ll be quiet for a bit, quietly rebuilding, gathering strength, and then, boom, we’re right back where we started. Groundhog Day, indeed. It’s a cycle that’s become all too familiar.
The big question, as always, is who’s going to foot the bill this time around? This isn’t a particularly new problem, and this is the third time we are having to address the same issue in the same manner. The world’s current state has shown that nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Iran will want to ensure that the country is capable of withstanding outside threats.
Some might see this as a desperate move, a cry for attention, a desire for self-harm, but others might view it as a logical and inevitable consequence of the current global landscape. We’ve seen how quickly things can unravel, how easily promises can be broken. It is also being seen as an admission that the nuclear program was, and is, not just for civilian consumption, in spite of prior claims.
If anything, Iran now knows that if they don’t have nukes, they’ll be threatened and potentially bombed. Handshake deals are worth nothing in this geopolitical game. Look at Ukraine and what it learned the hard way. Anyone who gave up their nukes later regretted it.
The implication is clear: nuclear weapons provide a certain level of security, or at least, a perceived level of security. It’s a deterrent. It’s about survival in a world where the rules seem to be constantly rewritten. The more pressing issue will be, at what cost to the Iranian people? Resources are already stretched thin, infrastructures are falling apart, and money that was supposed to support the country is being wasted on terrorist proxies.
There is another factor here. Nuclear power gives independence. A country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons is only sovereign on paper. With them, that independence becomes a fact. The United States has been dictating who can have nuclear weapons for a long time. The response to this is “why should America get to dictate who can have nukes?” Iran will not be happy to accept this paradigm.
The sentiment seems to be that if the “atomic chief” *didn’t* vow to restore the program, he wouldn’t have a job. It’s a position that comes with a certain, expected viewpoint. There is also the fact that Iran still has the uranium reserves from the old program, which won’t make the situation easier.
The situation seems to boil down to the fact that the only way to ensure other countries don’t interfere with your nation is to have nukes. It is unlikely that Iran would risk not having these weapons. Threats of bombing and war are only going to make them double down and produce nukes faster, and with more effective weaponry.
It’s not a matter of whether they will, but when. It would not be shocking for a bombing to take place in the next decade. It’s a vicious cycle.