Latest news with #nuclearIran
Fox News
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
I'm a Christian pastor who was born in Egypt. Here are 3 facts I learned about Iran's nuclear obsession
I grew up in a Christian community in Egypt. Like many other families, we suffered firsthand under the oppressive rule of the Islamo-socialist regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser, chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council of Egypt. Later, Nasser's military dictatorship controlled every aspect of our lives. As a young man, I escaped the repression of Nasser's Egypt and made my way to freedom in America. Having lived under Islamo-socialism in Egypt, I have a deep compassion for the suffering people of Iran. They only want to live in peace. But the leaders of Iran are committed to a death-cult ideology—and to a nuclear showdown with Western civilization. Here are three key facts that show why Iran's radical clerics will never abandon their nuclear obsession: Fact No. 1: A nuclear-armed Iran cannot be deterred by Cold War nuclear doctrines. During the Cold War, the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept nuclear superpowers in check. Every president, premier, and prime minister knew that launching a nuclear attack would invite annihilation. I've heard people say, "We're already living with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Would a nuclear-armed Iran be any worse?" In fact, a nuclear-armed Iran would be infinitely worse. The reason is that Shiite Islam—the ruling ideology in Iran—makes Cold War doctrines of deterrence obsolete. Here's why: Fact No. 2: Iran's leaders have a religious incentive to launch Armageddon. I've spent countless hours talking to Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the Middle East. I also studied cultural anthropology at Emory University, with a focus on radical Islamic movements. My research was published in a textbook, "Revolt against Modernity." I believe it's vitally important that we in the West understand Islamic history and Islamic beliefs. Islam is divided into several sects, most notably Sunnis and Shiites. In 1501, the Safavid rulers of the Persian Empire declared Twelver Shiite Islam the official state religion, distinguishing Persia from its Sunni neighbors. After Persia was renamed Iran in 1935, Twelver Shiism remained the official faith. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shia Islam, and is defined by its belief in twelve divinely ordained Imams (rightful successors to Muhammad). The last Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, supposedly went into occultation (a miraculously hidden state) in the 9th century. Twelvers claim the Mahdi will one day reappear to establish global justice. Many of Iran's clerics fervently believe that, before the Mahdi can be revealed, an apocalyptic battle must be fought between faithful Muslims and the forces of evil. As a result, some Iranian leaders—and possibly the Ayatollah himself—are motivated to trigger a nuclear war to fulfill the ancient prophecies and force the appearance of the hidden Mahdi. Iran officially denies having a nuclear weapons program. In October 2003, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, issued a fatwa stating that nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, claims Iran has enough highly enriched uranium to build nine nuclear warheads. Shiite Islam invented a religious/judicial doctrine called Taqiyya, which necessitates deceiving your enemies until you have the upper hand. The recent attacks by Israel and the United States against Iran's nuclear facilities have dealt a serious setback to the clerics' nuclear ambitions—but don't be misled. Iran's Twelver Shiite clerics will never abandon their fanatical dream of launching a final war and revealing the long-hidden Mahdi. Fact No. 3: A nuclear-armed Iran threatens not only Israel, but all of Western civilization. Iran has shown that its missiles are capable of penetrating Israel's Iron Dome defense systems. Imagine if those missiles carried nuclear warheads! Even more troubling, Iran is aggressively developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) through its space launch vehicle (SLV) program. The director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, told Congress that Iran could use its SLV program to work "toward an ICBM capability." Whenever Iran tests a satellite launch vehicle, it's flexing its ability to threaten Europe and North America. The Iranian clerics have made their goal clear: "Death to Israel! Death to America!" But we in the West do not seek the death of Iran. We only want the Iranian people to be free from theocratic oppression. The people of Iran have repeatedly risen up against the Islamist regime—the 1999 Student Protests, the 2019 "Bloody November" protests, the 2022 women's rights protests, and many others. Each time the people rose up, the government brutally extinguished their cries for freedom. I trust and hope that another uprising comes soon, and that the people of Iran achieve their liberation. And I also hope that the leaders of the United States, Europe, and Israel do everything in their power to speed the arrival of that day.
Washington Post
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Unilateral war won't build a safer world
The debate about the military effectiveness of the U.S. airstrikes against Iran misses a more profound point: Brilliant battlefield success by itself will not ensure a nuclear-free Iran. The U.S. attacks capped a year-plus Israeli campaign that utterly exposed Iran's 'axis of resistance' as a paper tiger. My own guess is that the strikes were highly effective. Uranium enrichment facilities rely on elaborate machinery, steady power supply and structurally sturdy environments. All that is likely to have been compromised by the 14 bunker-buster bombs that hit their targets with precision. But even assuming the damage was severe, most experts I have spoken to estimate that the strikes would have set back Iran's nuclear program by one to two years. By contrast, the Iran nuclear deal finalized in 2015 placed Iran's nuclear program in check for 10 to 15 years.
New York Times
18-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
America Must Not Rush Into a War Against Iran
A nuclear-armed Iran would make the world less safe. It would destabilize the already volatile Middle East. It could imperil Israel's existence. It would encourage other nations to acquire their own nuclear weapons, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. Now, however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has acted to destroy Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons without first shoring up allies' support. The United States faces being dragged into another war in the Middle East, with American lives at stake. And while the world tries to figure out what President Trump will do in the coming days, that is the wrong question. If Mr. Trump wants the United States to join the Israeli war against Iran, the next step is as clear: Congress must first authorize the use of military force. Our laws are explicit on this point. An unprovoked American attack on Iran — one that could involve massive bombs known as bunker busters — would not be a police action or special military operation. It would be a war. To declare it is not the decision of Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Trump. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has that power. When lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, they limited the president's authority to conduct military operations, carving out an exception to respond to a foreign attack. This is not such a circumstance. Iran has not attacked the United States. There is ample time for Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, to debate this decision and render its judgment. Several members of Congress seem to appreciate that responsibility. On Tuesday, Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, filed a House resolution, along with Democratic colleagues, that would require Congress to sign off ahead of any offensive U.S. attack against Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, introduced a similar measure on Monday. This approach has a long history. Only one day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, in 1941, both houses of Congress declared war. Even with the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson persuaded lawmakers to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. More recently, Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq in both 1991 and 2002. It also did so in 2001, before the war in Afghanistan. Members of Congress from both parties have often rightly stood up for their power in this area. In 2013, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas told ABC News that President Barack Obama did not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without congressional approval. 'It would be contrary to the Constitution,' Mr. Cruz said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Reuters
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US military evaluating options to prevent nuclear-armed Iran, general says
WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - The top U.S. general overseeing American forces in the Middle East said on Tuesday there were a range of options when asked if the military was prepared to respond with overwhelming force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. "I have provided the secretary of defense and the president with a wide range of options," U.S. Army General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), told a congressional hearing. Kurilla was responding to Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, the chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, who asked if CENTCOM was prepared to respond with overwhelming force if Iran does not permanently give up its nuclear ambitions. "I take that as a yes?" the Alabama Republican asked, after Kurilla responded. "Yes," Kurilla said. Iran said on Monday it would soon hand a counterproposal for a nuclear deal to the United States in response to a U.S. offer that Tehran deems unacceptable, while U.S. President Donald Trump said talks would continue.
