If Only Iran Had Developed the Atomic Bomb | Critical Analysis |Axisoflogic.com

If only Iran had developed the atomic bomb, well, it would not have been developed at all, let alone used to threaten imaginary enemies around the world. Not only has Iran’s Supreme Leaders consistently maintained a “Thou shall not develop nuclear weapons!” policy, but using them is extremely unpopular among Iranians. Since the United States is a highly weaponized and nuclear-oriented society, this reality is difficult to grasp. Yet it is more accurate than what the U.S. is trying to currently project onto Iran and the global community: its own culpability in developing and maintaining nuclear arsenals.

This was again emphasized in Gareth Porter’s exclusive interview, “When the Ayatollah Said No to Nukes,” conducted with a top Iranian official, Mohsen Rafighdoost, who served as minister of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). On two occasions during the 1980-87 Iraq-Iran War, Rafighdoost prepared a report and proposed to Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini that Iran should restart its nuclear program and begin working on chemical weapons. Each time, Iran’s Supreme Leader reminded him that both nuclear and chemical weapons were forbidden by Islam and inconsistent with preserving life.(1)

Despite over 100,00 Iranians being killed and wounded by Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons, which was supplied by the U.S., Iran’s Supreme Leader declared a fatwa against developing such weapons of mass destruction. (A fatwa is based on interpretations of the shari’ah, or God’s law, and is a divine religious decree.) In another incident, Rafighdoost wanted to establish the IRGC’s headquarters at the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran. But the Supreme Leader said, “Why do you want to go there?” Are our disputes with the U.S. supposed to last a thousand years? Do not go there!”

Though Iran’s Supreme Leaders have ruled out historical grudges and weapons of mass destruction, the same cannot be said of the U.S. Having come of age when every aspect of industry and society was being weaponized, including its democracy, it continues to “go there” by retaliating against Iran. And as it grew to perceive the world through a prism of hegemony-always trying to dominate through military power-the U.S. had to prevail no matter the consequences. To end wars, it immorally justified developing and using “super weapons.” It preemptively invaded sovereign nations for the purpose of regime change.

An example is when the U.S. ruled through the Shah after toppling Iran’s democratically elected leader in 1954. With the U.S.‘s approval, the Shah embarked on an ambitions nuclear weapons program. Billions of dollars poured in from France and Germany and by 1974, six nuclear reactors for weapons production were established. Programs for training Iranian nuclear scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were also set up in the same years.(2) But this all changed as a result of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Iran’s new religious rulers viewed weapons of mass destruction to be inconsistent with Islam.

In the face of trying to humiliate Iran, of linking it to terrorism, of labeling it an “axis of evil”, and repeatedly threatening the nation with armed invasions, Iran’s Supreme Leaders have always declared that it will never produce nuclear weapons because they are not allowed by Islam. As of late, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated: “The West knows very well that we are not seeking to build nuclear weapons, which are against our political and economic interests and Islamic beliefs.”(3) Given Iran’s capability to develop weapons of mass destruction but its unwillingness to do so, who is the U.S. and West trying to fool?

The U.S. and Western powers needs imaginary enemies to weaponize their industrial bases and foreign policies, for hardliners and hawks to strengthen their internal positions, to limit domestic freedoms, and to hold the world hostage. This supports Chuck Hagel’s, U.S. Secretary of Defense recent assessment: “We are living through one of these historic, defining times…We are seeing a new world order-post World War II, post Soviet Union implosion.” He added there would be an open-ended war with the Islamic State In Syria, and open-ended-wars with various other enemies of the U.S. military.(4)

Like Iran, if only the U.S. had pursued a “Thou shall not weaponize!” policy. Not only would atomic and nuclear weaponry have been avoided, but suspicious and nuclearized Western powers would not be nearing a November deadline. A deadline that warns Iran to dismantle its ability to enrich uranium which is being used for civilian and peaceful purposes. The world need not be concerned over Iran’s de-weaponisized Islamic Republic. The real secret wars are nuclear and weaponized governments that relieve themselves of self-criticism and hold their people hostage by exploiting Iran.

Notes:
(1) “When the Ayatollah Said no to Nukes,” by Gareth Porter. October 16, 2014.
(2) Arjomand, Said Amir. After Khomeini, Iran Under His Successors. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009., p. 197.
(3) Ibid., p. 202.
(4) “Hagel New World Order Means Endless War,” by Jason Dietz. October 31, 2014.

Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John‘s Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace.