logo
How The United States Forced Iran To Pursue A Nuclear Programme

How The United States Forced Iran To Pursue A Nuclear Programme

NDTV25-06-2025
New Delhi:
When American scientists helped install a nuclear reactor in Tehran in the 1960s, they did so under the banner of peace. Decades later, US warplanes bombed Iranian nuclear sites to halt what they now see as a threat.
It began with the 'Atoms for Peace' programme, launched by President Dwight D Eisenhower to share civilian nuclear technology with allies. At the time, Iran, ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a model Cold War partner, secular, West-leaning, and eager to modernise. The US responded by helping install the Tehran Research Reactor, training Iranian scientists at elite institutions like MIT, and encouraging partnerships with European allies.
To Washington, it was a strategy to extend influence, contain Soviet power, and showcase the "benevolent" use of atomic energy. In practice, it created an entire ecosystem of nuclear capacity inside Iran that would long outlast the Shah's regime.
"We gave Iran its starter kit," said Robert Einhorn, a former US arms control negotiator and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "We weren't terribly concerned about nuclear proliferation in those days, so we were pretty promiscuous about transferring nuclear technology."
The concern was not about what Iran might do with the technology one day, but what the Soviet Union could do at the time.
Under the Shah, Iran's ambitions scaled. Despite sitting on massive oil reserves, Iran was determined to become a nuclear power in both symbolism and capability. France and Germany signed multibillion-dollar reactor deals.
US media ran ads touting the Shah's responsible embrace of nuclear power. Behind the public enthusiasm, intelligence officials in Washington were growing wary. The Shah's insistence on uranium enrichment, legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but dual-use in nature, was raising flags.
By the late 1970s, US policymakers tried to restrain Iran's growing autonomy by modifying reactor contracts and insisting on fuel restrictions. But by then, the nuclear infrastructure was already embedded.
And then came the 1979 Islamic Revolution, sweeping away the Shah from power and replacing him with a clerical regime hostile to the US.
US-Iranian relations collapsed overnight.
Initially, the new rulers had little to no interest in the nuclear project. It was expensive, Western-built, and closely tied to the ousted regime. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini saw little value in continuing it.
Iran's brutal war with Iraq in the 1980s, marked by chemical weapons and massive casualties, forced its leadership to reassess national defence. Once again, nuclear technology looked less like a luxury and more like a deterrent. But this time, the US wasn't the supplier.
Instead, Iran turned to Pakistan.
There, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, provided Iran with designs and components for uranium enrichment centrifuges. That transfer, based on stolen European technology, gave Iran its first real tools for weaponization of nuclear energy.
Yet the foundation that enabled Iran to absorb that technology had been laid by the United States decades earlier.
By the early 2000s, the world discovered Iran's secret enrichment sites. Tehran claimed it was within its rights under the NPT. The US and its allies were unconvinced.
From there, the crisis hardened: sanctions, sabotage, and shadow wars replaced dialogue.
The 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the JCPOA, briefly froze the crisis. But the Trump administration withdrew from the deal in 2018.
That unravelling triggered a return to confrontation, ending in the very airstrikes meant to destroy the kind of capability the US once helped cultivate.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sydney Sweeney's controversial ad campaign draws Trump's attention, he says 'advertising a very funny thing'
Sydney Sweeney's controversial ad campaign draws Trump's attention, he says 'advertising a very funny thing'

Economic Times

time11 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

Sydney Sweeney's controversial ad campaign draws Trump's attention, he says 'advertising a very funny thing'

AP US President Donald Trump was asked about the Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle's ad by Newsmax anchor Rob Finnerty The ongoing controversy surrounding Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad has garnered a lot of attention online. Sweeney, 27, and American Eagle faced backlash earlier this week after the blonde-haired, blue-eyed 'White Lotus' starlet appeared in a new denim ad for the popular clothing and accessories retailer. It sparked a debate over race and Western beauty President Donald Trump was asked about the Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle's ad by Newsmax anchor Rob Finnerty. Trump was asked about the highly contested advertisement in a bizarre question that ended with the president going on a rant about transgender actress Dylan Mulvaney and his own experience with advertising, reports The Irish Star. ALSO READ: Social Security eyes massive reform in US: New policy could hit 3.4 million Americans this month "Your administration has been very open about the fact that American women are not having enough babies," the Newsmax anchor began his perplexing line of questioning. "There was an ad this week. Sydney Sweeney, an actress, was in an ad for Blue Jeans. The ad is doing very well. It's very popular. The jeans are sold out," he went on before asking, "Does America need to see more ads like that? And maybe fewer ads with people like Dylan Mulvaney on the cover?" ALSO READ: Solar Eclipse on August 2 in US? What NASA has said on world going dark for 6 minutes Trump took the bait and went on a rant about the Bud Light campaign. He said, "The Dylan Mulvaney ad was perhaps the most unsuccessful ad in history. It knocked 35 million dollars off the value of a certain company. You know what I'm talking about. That was one of the great disasters of all time. I would say it was probably the most unsuccessful ad, worst ad ever." He continued, "You know, advertising is a very funny thing. I've done ads where I thought they were lousy and they turned out to be iconic, and then I've done some that I thought were beauties that were gonna be fantastic, and they weren't so good, so to each his own. But the Dylan Mulvaney ad was a total disaster." The Newsmax anchor paired the question with an onscreen banner that read, "Trump ends the era of woke."ALSO READ: 'Rage Against The Regime' protests: Over 300 US cities hosting anti-Trump demonstrations today on JD Vance's birthday. Full list American Eagle is standing by its controversial ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, which includes various commercials with the tagline: 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.' The campaign has been criticized for promoting eugenics with its tagline, "Sydney Sweeney has good jeans," which many interpreted as a white supremacist dog whistle. ''Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans,' the company said Friday in a statement obtained by The Post. 'Her jeans. Her story.' 'We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way,' the statement continued. 'Great jeans look good on everyone.''I have great jeans… now you can too,' the 'Euphoria' actress wrote on Instagram on July 23, alongside a video for the controversial campaign. But some social media users compared the marketing move to "Nazi propaganda". ALSO READ: Stimulus payments August 2025: These US states will receive financial benefit. Do you qualify? 'I thought it was gonna be, like, kinda bad, but wow,' one critic wrote on TikTok. 'That's gonna be in history books!' 'I will be the friend that's too woke, but those Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ads are weird,' another added. 'Like, fascist weird. Like Nazi propaganda weird.' Singers Lizzo, 37, and Doja Cat, 29, also took to social media to ridicule Sweeney and American Eagle over the controversy. 'My jeans are black…' the 'Truth Hurts' singer wrote alongside a digitally altered picture showing herself in the denim shirt and jeans that Sweeney wore for the American Eagle photo shoot. Doja Cat shared a TikTok video of herself repeating Sweeney's American Eagle campaign monologue with an exaggerated accent. American Eagle appeared to distance itself from the 'Nazi propaganda' backlash by sharing other ads from the campaign that did not feature Sweeney.'Denim on denim on denim… on denim,' the company wrote alongside the new ad on July 27. 'AE has great jeans.' Plus, American Eagle's stock rose more than 10% immediately after the new campaign kicked off on July 23.

Trump's tariff threat: For India, no deal is better than a bad one
Trump's tariff threat: For India, no deal is better than a bad one

First Post

time13 minutes ago

  • First Post

Trump's tariff threat: For India, no deal is better than a bad one

Trade deals aren't T20s—they're Test matches, needing years of diplomacy, while President Trump wants them wrapped up in days read more America is India's largest trading partner. Still, the world is larger than the US, and India is a sovereign global power. File Image/Reuters The President of the United States, Donald Trump, issues policy decisions and administrative orders from golf courses, aboard Air Force One, on his social media platform Truth Social, and occasionally from the White House in the form of Executive Orders. For President Trump, 'tariff' is the most beautiful word in the dictionary. Once again, on July 31, 2025, Trump disrupted the global trade order, sending markets into turmoil with a sweeping revision of ad valorem duties on imports from nearly 200 countries. His latest Executive Order was issued just a day before his extended deadline to the world expired on August 1, 2025. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India, along with Brazil, Canada, and Switzerland, has been hit particularly hard. I'll examine the implications for India shortly. Extreme Break, and the Cost to US Consumers First, what do these new tariff orders signify? Indisputably, they add more confusion to an already uncertain global trade environment. More critically, they represent a sharp departure from over a century of US trade policy. According to the Budget Lab at Yale University, the new tariffs will lead to an overall effective tariff rate of 18.3 per cent— the highest since 1934. They estimate this will cost the average American household around $2,400 in 2025 alone. Markets in a Tizzy The new trade policy, effective August 7, impacts nearly every country and marks a decisive break from decades of free trade. The result? Markets tumbled on both sides of the Atlantic. After an early-day sell-off in Asian markets, Europe's Stoxx 600 fell nearly 2 per cent, the UK's FTSE 100 declined by 0.8 per cent, and Wall Street closed lower, with the Dow Jones and S&P 500 down over 1 per cent, and the Nasdaq dropping more than 2 per cent. The market drop was worsened by weaker-than-expected US job data. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why So Much Uncertainty? First, the second Executive Order (dated July 31) came just months after the original April 2 order — a one-two punch for global markets. Second, there is no assurance that we've seen the worst of Trump's tariff campaign. Decoding the New Tariff Regime The revised tariffs impact nearly every country and signify a hard pivot toward protectionism. Here's how the new structure breaks down: 10 per cent Tariff: Imposed on countries with whom the US has a trade surplus (ie, countries that import more from the US than they export to it). 15 per cent Tariff: Set as a minimum for about 40 countries where the US runs a trade deficit. For some, this is lower than the April 2 'reciprocal' tariffs; for others, it's higher. Above 15 per cent: Over two dozen countries now face tariffs higher than 15 per cent, either due to agreed frameworks or unilateral decisions by Trump — mostly those with large trade deficits with the US. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trans-shipment Penalty: An additional 40 per cent tariff may be imposed on goods Washington deems as 'trans-shipped' through another country — a move primarily targeting Chinese goods. Winners and Losers The new tariff framework has created a jarring set of winners and losers. Losers: Brazil: Hit hardest with a 50 per cent tariff, including a vague 'free speech' penalty. India: Faces a 25 per cent tariff, plus an unspecified penalty for purchasing Russian energy and military hardware — potentially as high as 200 per cent. Syria: 41 per cent tariff — second highest after Brazil. Myanmar and Laos: 40 per cent each. Switzerland: Slapped with a 39 per cent tariff, the highest for any European nation outside the EU. Iraq and Serbia: 35 per cent each. Canada: Tariff raised to 35 per cent, but goods compliant with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) are exempt. South Africa, Algeria, Libya: 30 per cent each — the highest in Africa. Moldova, Mexico, Brunei, Tunisia, Kazakhstan: All face a 25 per cent tariff — same as India, though India has the added Russia penalty. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Winners: Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Vietnam: Each now faces a 20 per cent tariff, down sharply from April's rates (46 per cent for Vietnam, 44 per cent Sri Lanka, 37 per cent Bangladesh, 31per cent Taiwan). Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand: Tariffs lowered to 19 per cent, from as high as 49 per cent (Cambodia) and 32 per cent (Indonesia) in April. This comparison puts India at a clear disadvantage among its Asian peers. Trump had initially imposed tariffs up to 27 per cent on Indian goods in April, later paused. Since then, multiple rounds of trade talks have taken place. There's More Beyond general import tariffs, targeted levies now affect specific industries: Steel & Aluminium: 50 per cent (effective June 4) Copper: 50 per cent (effective August 1) Automobiles & Car Parts: 25 per cent (from April 3 and May 3) Though not yet implemented, Trump has threatened 200 per cent tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, citing national security. Ninety Deals in Ninety Days? On April 2 — what Trump dubbed Liberation Day — he introduced his first round of 'reciprocal' tariffs. Days later, he paused them, giving trading partners 90 days to negotiate deals with the US. Trump ambitiously aimed for 90 deals in 90 days. According to Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council, over 50 countries began talks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Arm-Twisting, Not Diplomacy Despite his optimism, Trump has little to show beyond coercive deals: UK: A deal allowing 100,000 cars to be exported to the US at 10 per cent tariff (down from 25 per cent). EU: 15 per cent flat tariff — less than the threatened 30 per cent. Japan: 15 per cent tariff, plus $550 billion investment in US infrastructure and agricultural market access. Philippines: Reduced from 20 per cent to 19 per cent. China: Tariff reduced from 145 per cent to 30 per cent; China reciprocated with a cut from 125 per cent to 10 per cent. South Korea: Tariff set at 15 per cent (down from 25 per cent); Korea pledged $350 billion investment and $100 billion in US energy purchases. These are not carefully negotiated, mutually beneficial agreements — they are outcomes of arm-twisting. Trade Deals Aren't White-Ball Cricket Trump's 90-deal ambition was destined to falter. Trade deals aren't T20 matches — they're Test cricket. They require years of diplomacy and legislative buy-in. The global average to finalise a trade deal is 2.5 years. Trump wants them done in days. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's Trade Talks – Derailed Again India has held five rounds of talks with the Trump administration — predating the April 2 tariffs. Trump repeatedly claimed a 'great deal' with India was coming. Then, out of nowhere, he delivered a bouncer. Despite ongoing talks, he branded India a 'tariff king' and an 'abuser of trade ties', imposing a 25 per cent tariff — significantly higher than most Asian peers — plus an unspecified Russia-related penalty. The most alarming scenario? Trump enforces his earlier threat of a 100 per cent secondary tariff on Russian energy buyers. This would make Indian goods prohibitively expensive in the US. The Logic? There Often Isn't One Trump's justification? High Indian tariffs, non-monetary barriers, and India's defense trade with Russia. Here's what he posted on Truth Social on July 30: 'Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high… Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia… INDIA WILL THEREFORE BE PAYING A TARIFF OF 25% PLUS A PENALTY… STARTING ON AUGUST FIRST. THANK YOU… MAGA!' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The next day, Trump doubled down: 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care…' Consequences of No Deal In just three days, Trump reversed course — from promising a 'great deal' to dismissing India's economy altogether. The 25 per cent tariff took effect on August 1. A last-minute mini deal India and the US had been negotiating since February has now collapsed. A comprehensive trade deal looks even more unlikely. Time for Bharat First If the new tariffs and the Russia penalty persist, India's GDP could take a 0.2-0.4 per cent hit, especially affecting export sectors like marine products, textiles, leather, automobiles, and pharmaceuticals. But it's time to hold the line. As the government rightly states, India must take all necessary steps to protect its national interest — as seen in recent trade pacts like the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the UK. America is India's largest trading partner. Still, the world is larger than the US, and India is a sovereign global power. India must refuse any trade agreement that is inequitable or detrimental to its farmers, entrepreneurs, and Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). No deal is better than a bad deal. The author is a multi-disciplinary thought leader with Action Bias and an India based impact consultant. He is a keen watcher of changing national and international scenarios. He works as President Advisory Services of Consulting Company BARSYL. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

Sydney Sweeney's controversial ad campaign draws Trump's attention, he says 'advertising a very funny thing'
Sydney Sweeney's controversial ad campaign draws Trump's attention, he says 'advertising a very funny thing'

Time of India

time30 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Sydney Sweeney's controversial ad campaign draws Trump's attention, he says 'advertising a very funny thing'

What Trump said on Sydney Sweeney ad controversy Live Events Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle controversy (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The ongoing controversy surrounding Sydney Sweeney 's American Eagle ad has garnered a lot of attention online. Sweeney, 27, and American Eagle faced backlash earlier this week after the blonde-haired, blue-eyed 'White Lotus' starlet appeared in a new denim ad for the popular clothing and accessories retailer. It sparked a debate over race and Western beauty President Donald Trump was asked about the Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle's ad by Newsmax anchor Rob Finnerty. Trump was asked about the highly contested advertisement in a bizarre question that ended with the president going on a rant about transgender actress Dylan Mulvaney and his own experience with advertising, reports The Irish Star."Your administration has been very open about the fact that American women are not having enough babies," the Newsmax anchor began his perplexing line of questioning. "There was an ad this week. Sydney Sweeney, an actress, was in an ad for Blue Jeans. The ad is doing very well. It's very popular. The jeans are sold out," he went on before asking, "Does America need to see more ads like that? And maybe fewer ads with people like Dylan Mulvaney on the cover?"Trump took the bait and went on a rant about the Bud Light campaign. He said, "The Dylan Mulvaney ad was perhaps the most unsuccessful ad in history. It knocked 35 million dollars off the value of a certain company. You know what I'm talking about. That was one of the great disasters of all time. I would say it was probably the most unsuccessful ad, worst ad ever."He continued, "You know, advertising is a very funny thing. I've done ads where I thought they were lousy and they turned out to be iconic, and then I've done some that I thought were beauties that were gonna be fantastic, and they weren't so good, so to each his own. But the Dylan Mulvaney ad was a total disaster." The Newsmax anchor paired the question with an onscreen banner that read, "Trump ends the era of woke."American Eagle is standing by its controversial ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, which includes various commercials with the tagline: 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.' The campaign has been criticized for promoting eugenics with its tagline, "Sydney Sweeney has good jeans," which many interpreted as a white supremacist dog whistle.''Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans,' the company said Friday in a statement obtained by The Post. 'Her jeans. Her story.' 'We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way,' the statement continued. 'Great jeans look good on everyone.''I have great jeans… now you can too,' the 'Euphoria' actress wrote on Instagram on July 23, alongside a video for the controversial campaign. But some social media users compared the marketing move to "Nazi propaganda".'I thought it was gonna be, like, kinda bad, but wow,' one critic wrote on TikTok. 'That's gonna be in history books!''I will be the friend that's too woke, but those Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ads are weird,' another added. 'Like, fascist weird. Like Nazi propaganda weird.' Singers Lizzo, 37, and Doja Cat, 29, also took to social media to ridicule Sweeney and American Eagle over the controversy.'My jeans are black…' the 'Truth Hurts' singer wrote alongside a digitally altered picture showing herself in the denim shirt and jeans that Sweeney wore for the American Eagle photo shoot. Doja Cat shared a TikTok video of herself repeating Sweeney's American Eagle campaign monologue with an exaggerated Eagle appeared to distance itself from the 'Nazi propaganda' backlash by sharing other ads from the campaign that did not feature Sweeney.'Denim on denim on denim… on denim,' the company wrote alongside the new ad on July 27. 'AE has great jeans.' Plus, American Eagle's stock rose more than 10% immediately after the new campaign kicked off on July 23.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store