• العربية
  • فارسی
Brand
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Theme
  • Language
    • العربية
    • فارسی
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
All rights reserved for Volant Media UK Limited
volant media logo
ANALYSIS

Iran faces internal debate over building nuclear weapons

Maryam Sinaiee
Maryam Sinaiee

Iran International

Apr 3, 2025, 07:32 GMT+1Updated: 08:44 GMT+0
Ali Larijani, senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader
Ali Larijani, senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader

Remarks by a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader warning of Iran being pushed to produce nuclear weapons by US threats have sparked intense debate in Iran.

In a televised interview on Monday, Ali Larijani suggested that if Iran were attacked and public demand for nuclear weapons emerged, even the Supreme Leader’s religious decree (fatwa) against weapons of mass destruction could be reconsidered. Nonetheless, he insisted that Iran is not pursuing nuclear arms and remains committed to cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Khamenei’s ruling was presented by Iranian officials at the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament in April 2010. But such religious decrees could be altered or overturned given the ‘requirement of time and place’ as many historical instances prove.

Many hardliners and ultra-hardliners in Tehran—typically staunch critics of the moderate conservative Larijani—have embraced his remarks on social media.

“Had any other political figure raised the possibility of the Islamic Republic moving toward nuclear weapons, they would have been accused of warmongering or bluffing. Dr. Larijani’s decision to bring it up was a wise move and a timely act of sacrifice,” wrote Vahid Yaminpour, a prominent ultra-hardliner and former state television executive, on X.

“The Iranian nation wants nuclear weapons,” declared Seyed Komail, an ultra-hardliner social media activist with 27,000 followers, in response to Larijani’s remarks.

Abdollah Ganji, former editor of the IRGC-linked Javan newspaper, dismissed concerns over potential US or Israeli strikes, arguing that Iran’s nuclear facilities are too deeply fortified to be destroyed. He warned that an attack could lead to Iran's withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and retaliation against US military bases and Israel.

However, Larijani’s remarks stand in contrast to official government positions. Soon after his interview, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reaffirmed on X that Iran “under no circumstances” would seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons, emphasizing that diplomacy remains the best course of action.

Nour News, an online outlet believed to be affiliated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), also weighed in, questioning whether the US is prepared to face the consequences of further escalation.

Larijani’s statements have drawn strong criticism as well. Detractors argue that such rhetoric provides the US and Israel with an excuse to justify pre-emptive military action. “The Leader’s fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons is absolute and without exceptions,” posted cleric Saeed Ebrahimi on X, adding that raising the prospect of nuclear bombs would only give Iran's enemies justification for aggression.

Mohammad Rahbari, a prominent political commentator in Tehran, suggested that Larijani’s remarks signaled Iran may be alarmingly close to nuclear capability—precisely the kind of pretext Israel has been seeking for a preemptive strike. Senior reformist journalist Mohammad Sahafi also warned that such nuclear posturing could alienate potential allies who might otherwise support Iran in the face of Western pressure.

“Larijani's comment was unprofessional and came from a position of weakness; it had no merit. It also gave the other side an excuse to have strong reasons for pre-emptive action and to shape a global consensus. In short, if we are concerned about our homeland, we should not take such a reckless stance,” Hemmat Imani, an international relations researcher in Iran, wrote.

Others speculate that Larijani’s remarks are part of ongoing indirect negotiations with Washington. “Ali Larijani’s ‘warning’ should be seen as a calculated move in high-level negotiations,” suggested Iranian environmental journalist Sina Jahani.

Describing Larijani’s remarks as “a form of nuclear blackmail the Islamic Republic has used as a tool of threat for years,” Arvand Amir-Khosravi, a Norway-based academic and monarchist, wrote on X that the threat was “nothing more than a propaganda ploy to gain leverage in potential negotiations,” adding that pursuing nuclear weapons would invite military retaliation rather than enhance Iran’s security.

The United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported in November 2024 that, as of September 26, Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, last month, Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), described Iran’s nuclear program as extremely ambitious and wide-ranging. He warned that the country's uranium enrichment had reached near weapons-grade levels and was alarmingly close to the threshold for acquiring nuclear weapons.

Most Viewed

Iran negotiators ordered to return after internal rift over Islamabad talks
1
EXCLUSIVE

Iran negotiators ordered to return after internal rift over Islamabad talks

2
ANALYSIS

US blockade enters murky phase as tankers spoof signals and buyers hesitate

3
ANALYSIS

Why the $100 billion Hormuz toll revenue is a myth

4

US tightens financial squeeze on Iran, warns banks over oil money flows

5
ANALYSIS

US blockade targets Iran oil boom amid regional disruption

Banner
Banner

Spotlight

  • Hardliners push Hormuz ‘red line’ as US blockade tests Iran’s leverage
    INSIGHT

    Hardliners push Hormuz ‘red line’ as US blockade tests Iran’s leverage

  • Ideology may be fading in Iran, but not in Kashmir's ‘Mini Iran'
    INSIGHT

    Ideology may be fading in Iran, but not in Kashmir's ‘Mini Iran'

  • War damage amounts to $3,000 per Iranian, with blockade set to add to losses
    INSIGHT

    War damage amounts to $3,000 per Iranian, with blockade set to add to losses

  • Why the $100 billion Hormuz toll revenue is a myth
    ANALYSIS

    Why the $100 billion Hormuz toll revenue is a myth

  • US blockade targets Iran oil boom amid regional disruption
    ANALYSIS

    US blockade targets Iran oil boom amid regional disruption

  • Iran's digital economy battered by prolonged blackout
    INSIGHT

    Iran's digital economy battered by prolonged blackout

•
•
•

More Stories

'Great': US envoy answers Iran's top diplomat in cryptic, deleted post

Apr 2, 2025, 21:46 GMT+1

US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff reacted "great" on Wednesday to a spirited statement by Iran's foreign minister on X before swiftly deleting the post.

It was not immediately clear if the expunged monosyllable, which marks the first public interaction between Tehran and the Trump administration, was meant in earnest, irony or error.

Witkoff's office did not immediately respond to an Iran International request for comment.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have ramped up in recent days after Trump mooted bombing the country.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had written four paragraphs lamenting Washington's exit from a nuclear deal and recent talk of attacking Iran.

"10 years after signing the JCPOA—and 7 years after the US unilaterally walked away from it—there is not ONE SHRED OF PROOF that Iran has violated this commitment," Araghchi wrote, referring to a 2015 agreement from which the United States withdrew in Trump's first term.

"Diplomatic engagement worked in the past and can still work. BUT, it should be clear to all that there is—by definition—no such thing as a 'military option' let alone a 'military solution'," he added.

Witkoff, who has spearheaded talks for Trump in Israel-Hamas and Ukraine-Russia conflicts as part of the populist President's bid to wind down foreign reports, replied simply: "Great".

Within minutes, the reply was deleted from Witkoff's account.

The post came weeks after after a leaked chat among senior administration officials including Witkoff about plans for an imminent attack on the Iran-aligned Houthi group in Yemen sparked consternation in Washington among Trump's opponents.

Critics said the inclusion of a prominent journalist in the group and the discussion of sensitive military plans on a commercial chat app, Signal, endangered national security and revealed too much about official thinking and intelligence sources.

Trump on Sunday warned that Iran could face bombing and secondary tariffs if a nuclear deal was not reached with Washington. The remarks prompted a sharp riposte from Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who warned of a "heavy blow in return" if Iran were attacked.

Trump had previously reached out to Khamenei in the form of a personal letter in an attempt to explore a new nuclear agreement and prevent military escalation, Witkoff said late last month.

"We don't need to solve everything militarily," Witkoff told Fox News.

"Our signal to Iran is let's sit down and see if we can, through dialogue, through diplomacy, get to the right place. If we can, we are prepared to do that. And if we can't, the alternative is not a great alternative."

Russia says US threats on Iran nuclear sites 'illegal and unacceptable'

Apr 2, 2025, 18:24 GMT+1

Moscow has rejected as illegal US threats against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the Russian foreign ministry said on Wednesday, as tensions between Washington and Tehran have ramped up in recent weeks.

The remarks follow a discussion between the deputy foreign ministers of Russia and Iran Sergei Ryabkov and Iranian deputy foreign minister Majid Takht Ravanchi on Wednesday in which the two sides accused Western countries of "artificially and unreasonably" inflaming tensions over Tehran's nuclear program.

Using military force against Iran and threatening to strike its nuclear infrastructure would be "illegal and unacceptable," the Russian foreign ministry said according to Reuters, as they would cause "large-scale and irreversible radiological and humanitarian consequences" for the Middle East and the world.

US president Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his preference for a nuclear deal with Iran but warned that a failure to reach one within a timeframe he has set could lead to military action.

The exact start date of Trump's reported two-month deadline to Iran remains unclear.

Tehran has rejected direct negotiations with the Trump administration and has suggested indirect talks via Oman.

A day earlier, Ryabkov warned against a US strike on Iran and expressed optimism that the stand-off could be resolved diplomatically.

"There is still time, and the 'train has not left the station' yet. We must intensify efforts to reach a reasonable agreement," Ryabkov said in an interview with Russian journal International Affairs.

"Russia is ready to offer its services to Washington, Tehran and all parties interested in resolving this issue," he added.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also said last month that Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to mediate nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran.

Iran arms top officials over assassination threat - hacker group

Apr 2, 2025, 14:48 GMT+1

The Iranian police intelligence agency has issued thousands of gun permits to senior state officials in what a hacktivist group described as an unprecedented response to fear of internal reprisals.

Edalaat-e Ali, a group that has previously leaked surveillance footage and official documents, said the Law Enforcement Command of the Islamic Republic authorized the distribution of over 3,000 pistols to senior government officials.

The weapons, including stun guns and pepper spray, were issued following a clearance process involving three levels of vetting.

"This extraordinary move reveals the extent to which Iran’s leadership anticipates retaliatory action from its own citizens," Edalaat-e Ali wrote on X, saying the measure stemmed from fears that officials would be identified in future uprisings.

The group’s report could not be immediately verified by Iran International, but Iran has seen mounting tensions over economic hardship, water scarcity and political repression in recent months.

According to security sources cited by Edaalat-e Ali, personnel within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Intelligence Ministry had already received similar equipment for years.

The report surfaced shortly after farmers in central Iran torched a water transfer station in Isfahan province, disrupting supply to Yazd, amid a long-running dispute over access to the Zayandeh Rud river.

In January, two Supreme Court judges and clerics Mohammad Moghiseh and Ali Razini, both were shot dead in Tehran in a rare deadly attack on senior officials.

The assailant, a staff member responsible for refreshments at Iran's judiciary headquarters, committed suicide after the shooting. The judges were stalwart ideologues who had handed down harsh sentences on dissidents for decades.

“If the enemies think they can instigate sedition within the country, the Iranian nation itself will respond,” said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Monday.

Security directives have tightened nationwide, particularly at police stations and military facilities, according to the hacktivist group.

Edalaat-e Ali added that daily visitor numbers are now capped and ammunition stores reduced, citing fears that weapons could fall into civilian hands in case of a takeover.

The Iranian government’s response to public dissatisfaction has largely been marked by repression, including what happened in the wake of the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody in September 2022.

The tragedy triggered widespread protests across the country under the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom".

What began as outrage over Amini’s death rapidly transformed into a broader movement against the government, driven by long-standing political and social grievances. Authorities responded with mass arrests and a forceful crackdown, leading to over 500 deaths among demonstrators, according to rights groups and the United Nations.

Despite the efforts to silence dissent, the likelihood of future unrest remains high, not least as at least one third of the country now lives below the poverty line.

Years of economic mismanagement, widespread corruption, and the weight of international sanctions have deepened crises like fuel shortages and power outages, compounding public anger.

The government’s reluctance to raise fuel prices—mindful of the deadly 2019 protests—highlights its recognition of the growing risk of renewed demonstrations.


Trump weighing indirect Iran talks amid military buildup - Axios

Apr 2, 2025, 10:46 GMT+1

The White House is seriously considering an Iranian proposal for indirect nuclear talks, even as the US military significantly increases its presence in the Middle East, according to two US officials who spoke to Axios.

The deliberations come as Trump has repeatedly expressed his preference for a nuclear deal with Iran but warned that a failure to reach one within a timeframe he has set could lead to military action. The exact start date of Trump's reported two-month deadline to Iran remains unclear.

The consideration of indirect talks follows Iran's formal response to a letter sent by Trump to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in March. Iran rejected direct US talks as well as negotiating over its missile program and its support for armed regional groups, which the US has insisted must be part of any discussions.

While Trump had proposed direct negotiations, Iran has reportedly agreed only to indirect discussions mediated by Oman, which has previously played a mediating role between the two nations.

The US officials cited by Axios added that the Trump administration believes direct talks would be more effective but is not dismissing the Iranian proposal or Oman's potential role as mediator.

"After the exchange of letters, we are now exploring next steps in order to begin conversations and trust building with the Iranians," one of the US officials told Axios, emphasizing that no final decision has been made and internal discussions are ongoing.

More than one year of indirect talks with the Biden administration failed to produce an agreement. Those who believe Tehran might be playing for time see its demand for Omani mediation as a tactic to drag out negotiations until the end of the Trump administration.

Sources indicate an internal debate within the White House, with some officials believing a negotiated agreement is still possible, while others view further talks as futile and advocate for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

In a parallel move, the Pentagon is undertaking a substantial buildup of forces in the Middle East. The deployment would provide Trump with readily available military capabilities should he decide diplomatic efforts have failed.

The diplomatic maneuvering occurs against a backdrop of escalating rhetoric between Washington and Tehran.

Trump recently threatened to bomb Iran if a deal is not reached, prompting a sharp response from Khamenei, who warned of a "heavy blow in return" if Iran were attacked.

Iran has also lodged a formal protest via the Swiss embassy, which represents US interests in Iran, vowing a "decisive and immediate" response to any threat.

Tensions are further fueled by Iran's increased uranium enrichment, bringing it closer to becoming a nuclear threshold state, although Tehran maintains it does not seek nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon confirmed on Tuesday the deployment of additional troops and air assets to the region, with two aircraft carriers, the Truman and Vinson, remaining in the area.

Last week, B-2 stealth bombers were sent to the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean, a move a US official indicated was linked to Trump's deadline.

"Should Iran or its proxies threaten American personnel and interests in the region, the US will take decisive action to defend our people," Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement.

Is Iran’s real sedition from the streets or the top?

Apr 2, 2025, 09:46 GMT+1
•
Morad Vaisi

In his Eid al-Fitr sermon, Ali Khamenei once again voiced concern about the possible resurgence of anti-government protests in Iran, using his signature rhetoric to warn of a "new sedition."

But the fundamental question remains: who is the real seditionist? Is it the Iranian people protesting the country’s dire conditions—or is it Khamenei himself, who has held power for over three decades? Who is responsible for the current state of affairs that has him so worried? Who has ruled the country and made all major decisions over the past 36 years—ordinary citizens or Khamenei himself?

Khamenei labeling public protests as "sedition" and dismissing demonstrators as seditious is nothing new. This has always been his approach. He has never been willing to acknowledge that Iranian citizens are reacting to the country's deteriorating conditions, which are a direct result of his policies as supreme leader. He has consistently refused to recognize these protests as legitimate, branding them as riots in order to justify their suppression.

He views the citizens who took to the streets in dozens of cities during the 2017, 2019, and 2022 uprisings as being influenced by foreign enemies. But is this really plausible? Khamenei refuses to accept that these protests are domestic and popular in nature. He uses the label of unrest to delegitimize them.

If Khamenei is worried about new protests, he should understand that this fear stems from his own actions. The country’s current state—one that the majority of people reject—is the product of 36 years under his rule, and a decade before that under Khomeini.

Khamenei with top security and military officials. File photo
100%
Khamenei with top security and military officials. File photo

For 46 years, no one else has governed Iran. Even the monarchy, which the Islamic Republic continues to criticize and compare itself to, fares better in many metrics. In contrast, the Islamic Republic has dragged the country backward.

After 46 years in power, it is no longer acceptable for the Islamic Republic to measure itself against a government from half a century ago. And even when this comparison is made, in the minds of many Iranians, the Pahlavi era wins, while the Islamic Republic is clearly the loser.

While other nations have advanced in less time, Iran under the Islamic Republic has stagnated or regressed. Dubai and Qatar have achieved modern prosperity in under 46 years. China, now an economic superpower, began its development path after the Islamic Republic came to power—but unlike Iran, it made real progress. The Islamic Republic squandered these decades, pushed the country into ruin, and sacrificed three generations in the process—yet refuses to step aside. Meanwhile, those who object to these conditions are called seditious.

When Khamenei assumed power in 1989, the exchange rate was 1,200 rials to the US dollar. After 36 years of his leadership, it has surpassed one million—a depreciation of 87,000 percent. This isn't mere exaggeration; it’s verifiable with a basic calculation. And still, he labels public protests as sedition and threatens suppression—though such threats have long lost their force.

In just the past four years, the dollar has surged from around 200,000 rials to 1,040,000—more than a fivefold increase. So why wouldn’t people expect the currency to plunge further, possibly hitting one billion rials, if the current trajectory and war-driven policies continue?

Iran's government keeps printing money to make up for lack of revenues, fueling inflation.
100%
Iran's government keeps printing money to make up for lack of revenues, fueling inflation.

Given this economic collapse—and the fact that widespread poverty and dissatisfaction are direct consequences of Khamenei’s rule—how can he possibly justify calling protesters seditious?

Even some of Khamenei’s own allies, like former deputy parliament speaker Mohammadreza Bahonar, have admitted that inflation has hovered at 40 percent for the past seven years. Inflation, in essence, is a legalized form of theft by the state—citizens go to sleep at night and wake up to find their savings eroded.

Even former president Hassan Rouhani, a figure deeply entrenched in Iran’s security apparatus, has openly stated that the people are unhappy.

When individuals who played key roles in cracking down on the 2017 and 2019 protests now speak of widespread dissatisfaction, how can Khamenei still claim these movements are foreign-led?

Many Islamic Republic officials have warned that the public will once again take to the streets—an outcome of the government’s own policies. If anything needs to change, it is the behavior of those in power, not the people.

Numerous insiders have acknowledged the failures of the Islamic Republic’s domestic and foreign policies, especially regarding the US and Israel. Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard’s staunch anti-American and anti-Israeli stance has not only devastated the economy but also edged the country closer to a potentially catastrophic war.

Sanctions, largely driven by Tehran’s belligerent foreign policy, have primarily harmed ordinary Iranians—while enriching commanders of the Revolutionary Guard.

Mohammad Hossein Adeli, a former Central Bank governor, revealed that in just one year, efforts to circumvent sanctions—managed by the Revolutionary Guard—cost the country $50 billion.

Where did that money go? Beyond international middlemen, much of it ended up in the hands of IRGC commanders and oil smuggling networks. They call it “bypassing sanctions,” but in practice, it’s looting the nation while claiming sacrifice and heroism.

Naturally, the Guard will seek to protect this $50 billion racket—so it continues echoing anti-American policies. After all, it’s the people who pay the price, not the IRGC.

The reality is that through flawed domestic and foreign policies, the Islamic Republic has pushed Iran into a full-blown crisis. Public frustration and anger towards the ruling system is undeniable. The responsibility for this crisis rests squarely on Ali Khamenei and the government he leads.

Ultimately, public protests driven by economic collapse, corruption, and authoritarianism cannot be ignored—and they will inevitably erupt again. But the core question remains: in a country where even officials acknowledge the people's dissatisfaction, who is the real source of sedition—the people, or Ali Khamenei?