Iranian Nuclear Doctrine

[AA_]

No. There is a religious fatwa from the highest authority in Iran against it. If Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons it would have done so by now.

When Saddam's Iraq used Western-supplied chemical weapons against hundreds of thousands of Iranians in his invasion, Iran did not retaliate with chemical weapons.

You and they can believe what you want. Iran has not enriched uranium to 90%. Unlike other states in the region, Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has a legal right to enrich uranium.

Iran appears to want to be a nuclear-capable state, on the cusp of weaponisation at very short-notice. It lacks the political will to make that final step (due to terrorist traitors exposing its secret nuclear weapons program in 2002 meaning that Iran's case was referred to the UNSC). Since then Iran has been under the watchful eye of the international community and trying to close the UNSC file.


Indeed. The US remains open to returning to the JCPOA, recently stating that the deal the parties negotiated (that Iran walked away from) is still open.


Unsubstantiated conjecture. If there was ever a time to strike Iran, it would have been in the decades before Iran invested so heavily in its AD network and built several nuclear facilities spread across the entire country, several buried deep under mountains and thus beyond reach for Israel.


This is not logical. They have tried to conduct sabotage and other terrorist operations in Iran for decades, sometimes successfully in the short-term. None of them have a lasting impact and each one is counterproductive as they just Iran taking further steps to progress its nuclear program (e.g. legitimately enriching uranium to 60% after the Zionists extrajudicially assassinated Fakhirzadeh in an act of terrorism, which was previously a red-line for the West).


There is doubt because of the incredible deterrence and military power Iran has managed to accumulate, as evidenced by Israel's reticence to strike Iran until this point. I agree Israel has factored in Iran's response and the consequences of such an illegal act of aggression, hence why it has refrained from doing so (that's called deterrence).

Israel can probably heavily damage Natanz but it cannot destroy Fordow (or the massive new enrichment facilities being built deep underground at Natanz), it lacks the weapons needed to do so. By contrast, Iran can very easily destroy Israel's sole major nuclear facility (Dimona) with only 20 Emad ballistic missiles (even assuming a 20% failure rate and 90% interception rate) and then use the strike to legitimately withdraw from the NPT and enrich to 90% at Fordow. Therefore, unless Iran makes a sudden, clear rush to weaponisation, it is not logical for Israel to strike. Even then, the limitations of their options and costs they would incur would weigh heavily against such a decision.

Read what I wrote above

No, but Iran already has nukes that they bought from the former Soviet countries post 1991. I read this about this in Clash of civilization and the remaking of the new world order by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. The missile tests came after to marry the nukes to the missile. Kinda like how Pakistan did it. Ghauri was tested in 1998 I think before the nuke tests. Pakistan already had nuke warheads to go.

This is why Iran hasn’t been attacked yet. They won’t test unless they really have to. Israel too follows the same policy. Not the first, but won’t be the second.

 

[aryobarzan]

Reminds me of last few weeks before start of Russia/Ukraine war..politicking had reached a dead end...Putine had to make a move...now Ayatollahs in Iran have to make a move or eat humble pie and never touch the 90%..f*cking warped foreign policy of a bunch of mullahs.

 

[HGV]

The beauty is fatwa ends with Khameini.

This is false as far as I know. Iranian policy is that only the person who issues a fatwa can retract it. @SalarHaqq can confirm.

No, but Iran already has nukes that they bought from the former Soviet countries post 1991. I read this about this in Clash of civilization and the remaking of the new world order by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. The missile tests came after to marry the nukes to the missile. Kinda like how Pakistan did it. Ghauri was tested in 1998 I think before the nuke tests. Pakistan already had nuke warheads to go.

This is why Iran hasn’t been attacked yet. They won’t test unless they really have to. Israel too follows the same policy. Not the first, but won’t be the second.

Obviously nonsense.

 

[AA_]

This is false as far as I know. Iranian policy is that only the person who issues a fatwa can retract it. @SalarHaqq can confirm.

I thought once the issuer passes away, then we are not obligated to follow it. Just my understanding of the Shia doctrine.

 

[PDF]

No. There is a religious fatwa from the highest authority in Iran against it. If Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons it would have done so by now.

And what is to say they haven't done it by now?

Do remember that despite all the intelligence, traitors and all, they can be outdated in their assessments. At least we do know in Pakistan's case that to hold true. Intel is never too certain especially about such cases where the existence and survival of a state depends upon it.

And then, what is to stop the Ayatollah to rescind and replace it with a new fatwa (even if kept secret) taking into account the threat, circumstances and need especially in case of protecting Muslims from Dis-believers and allowing it's use in specific circumstances against only those who possess nukes (Israel, U.S.A, NATO Allies [Nuclear Umbrella])

 

[HGV]

And what is to say they haven't done it by now?

Iran is unfortunately heavily infiltrated by foreign spies, with a former deputy minister of defence (who was close friends with the most high-ranking officials in the entire security establishment) being the West's top intelligence asset in Iran from 2004-2019. It is not feasible that Iran could have a parallel nuclear program that managed to weaponise a warhead without being detected.

Iran's secret nuclear facilities being exposed in 2002 is what led to the end of Iran's nuclear weapons research in 2003 and the referral of Iran's nuclear file to the UNSC in the first place.

And then, what is to stop the Ayatollah to rescind and replace it with a new fatwa (even if kept secret) taking into account the threat, circumstances and need especially in case of protecting Muslims from Dis-believers and allowing it's use in specific circumstances against only those who possess nukes (Israel, U.S.A, NATO Allies [Nuclear Umbrella])

I am not sure a public fatwa can be secretly replaced by a new one issued only in private like that.

I mean, sure, many Iranians would even hope that is the case, but that is pure conjecture and seems illogical and very unlikely.

 

[PDF]

They won’t test unless they really have to. Israel too follows the same policy.

And I have heard Israel has tested nukes through third party (I can't recall but was it South Africa?)).

No, but Iran already has nukes that they bought from the former Soviet countries post 1991. I read this about this in Clash of civilization and the remaking of the new world order by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. The missile tests came after to marry the nukes to the missile.

Buying missiles for delivery systems and buying a Nuclear warhead is a different thing.

And if Iran did get one, Does it mean KSA also has one? Because as much Pakistan might have helped Iran at early stages, in 1990s etc, Pakistan was very close to Gulf and KSA might have made arrangements with Pakistan to balance strategic balance.

If a Harvard Professor knew it, I am sure KSA with their own intel, U.S, Israel and other Allies intel would have surely caught on.

 

[PDF]

Iranian policy is that only the person who issues a fatwa can retract it

Does it mean no Fatwa can be replaced or revoked after Death too and remains permanent even when a new Fatwa becomes necessary and required in certain circumstances?

 

[AA_]

And I have heard Israel has tested nukes through third party (I can't recall but was it South Africa?)).


Buying missiles for delivery systems and buying a Nuclear warhead is a different thing.

And if Iran did get one, Does it mean KSA also has one? Because as much Pakistan might have helped Iran at early stages, in 1990s etc, Pakistan was very close to Gulf and KSA might have made arrangements with Pakistan to balance strategic balance.

If a Harvard Professor knew it, I am sure KSA with their own intel, U.S, Israel and other Allies intel would have surely caught on.

Yes, though South Africa apartheid regime.

Many of the professors at the Ivy League schools are close with the Intel agencies of their nations. Harvard is basically a school for children of connected elite families and foreign dictators kids. Not saying Harvard is trash, but to me it’s the LUMs of the US. Yale Princeton top tier where Harvard coasts off it rep.

 

[PDF]

former deputy minister of defence

Sir,
If something is too important for a state especially survival, I am sure secrets can be kept despite all the treachery.
Pakistan's program too had many traitors etc but many things were kept in good secret. And there are compartmentalization among serving people, let alone the former officials links etc so I am more optimistic. Our AQ Khan for all his contributions and all did not have access to his KRL Labs he himself built after retirement and that was due to policy, not any pressure due to his controversial position.

 

[Piet]

Yes, though South Africa apartheid regime.

Many of the professors at the Ivy League schools are close with the Intel agencies of their nations. Harvard is basically a school for children of connected elite families and foreign dictators kids. Not saying Harvard is trash, but to me it’s the LUMs of the US. Yale Princeton top tier where Harvard coasts off it rep.

Yes sir

Interesting note, and probably right on ...

Do not however except confirmation of any of this before 3023

Yes, though South Africa apartheid regime.

Many of the professors at the Ivy League schools are close with the Intel agencies of their nations. Harvard is basically a school for children of connected elite families and foreign dictators kids. Not saying Harvard is trash, but to me it’s the LUMs of the US. Yale Princeton top tier where Harvard coasts off it rep.

Yes, though South Africa apartheid regime.

Many of the professors at the Ivy League schools are close with the Intel agencies of their nations. Harvard is basically a school for children of connected elite families and foreign dictators kids. Not saying Harvard is trash, but to me it’s the LUMs of the US. Yale Princeton top tier where Harvard coasts off it rep.

Regarding the SA connection.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt....

This s a subject still worthy of careful dissection ,,, especially If U R local.

Consider BTW , 'things' can happen if local lines are 'crossed'. Repos ailleurs.

P





Been there
.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I thought once the issuer passes away, then we are not obligated to follow it. Just my understanding of the Shia doctrine.

if you were follower of the person when he lived then you can continue follow him or follow another marja
if you were not his follower you can't become a follower after hi death

Does it mean no Fatwa can be replaced or revoked after Death too and remains permanent even when a new Fatwa becomes necessary and required in certain circumstances?

if you follow a guy at the time of his living and then decide to continue following him , yes you must follow his fatwas

 

[lydian fall]

If we make nukes then taghoot regimes in our region want to do the same

So our region doesn't get safer at all

 

[jauk]

If we make nukes then taghoot regimes in our region want to do the same

So our region doesn't get safer at all

How? They don’t have the tech. They can only buy which is possible but highly unlikely.

 

[HGV]

If we make nukes then taghoot regimes in our region want to do the same

So our region doesn't get safer at all

This is the conventional wisdom and something the West invokes as a justification for opposing Iran. But in reality I don't think it is true.

The other countries in question are primarily Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Both of these are heavily under the US security umbrella (Turkey being part of NATO). That is to say, they are under a much greater degree of control by the US than Iran is and will likely not risk a direct (political) conflict with the US by pursuing WMD. Also, and more importantly, they lack the ability to develop nuclear weapons. They do not produce centrifuges, they have not mastered the production of uranium metal or laser enrichment, they did not spend decades researching and simulating nuclear weapon designs etc. They don't have the underlying supply chain infrastructure of yellow cake, uranium mines and associated facilities needed to support a nuclear weapons program.