According to Khabaronline news agency, Fawad Yazidi,He said: The discussion of changing the nuclear doctrine in Iran is not a new issue. Earlier, Martyr Larijani said that if the people of Iran are put under pressure, we will see people’s concern or demand in the area of ​​changing the nuclear doctrine. Mr. Alavi, the Minister of Information, also suggested that if Iran is cornered, it will react. Now, with the martyrdom of the leader of the revolution, more than five thousand civilian martyrs, the testimony of nuclear scientists and military and political leaders, this concern has spread at the level of society. According to the survey mentioned by Mr. Ali Akbari, more than seventy percent of the people now have such a request.
According to Rajanews, you can read the most important parts of this political and international analyst’s speech below:
* The war experience showed that negotiation does not remove the shadow of war from the country. In the past year and a half, the country has been attacked three times and three times in the middle of negotiations. Now a large part of the public opinion, even some officials, have come to the conclusion that the other side of the two nuclear regimes is without moral restrictions; The regimes that committed genocide in Gaza and their crimes continue even after the agreement. People have seen that countries that have nuclear weapons, their leaders, civilians, scientists and infrastructure are not targeted in this way. Therefore, the change of public view towards the necessity of nuclear deterrence is completely understandable and can affect the country’s decisions.
*However, this decision is not purely political and emotional. The necessary data and technical information are not available to the general public and even many elites. It is not clear to what extent the destruction of Iran’s nuclear site has limited the possibility of producing weapons; Even if the perfect decision is made, there may be technical and physical limitations. For this reason, the plan of this discussion should not lead to pressure on the leadership or create this mindset that “why don’t they build?” If there is art, the burden should be removed, not added. The matter is not such that today’s decision leads to tomorrow’s production.
* The example of India and Pakistan shows that nuclear weapons can quickly resolve the war and prevent a full-scale war. In the case of Russia, nuclear deterrence prevented Western aid to Ukraine from becoming a direct conflict between NATO and Russia; Without nuclear weapons, the West’s goal could be to disintegrate or overthrow Russia.
* Regarding Israel, the claim that “if the atomic bomb has deterrence, then why did Iran attack Israel” is not correct. Israel has nuclear weapons and its existence will never be threatened by a foreign military attack. If it feels its soil is in serious danger, it will use tactical nuclear weapons and has no moral restraints. The end of Israel will be soft and from within; Like South Africa, which ended with political, economic and demographic changes, not with military occupation. By continuing to pursue totalitarianism, settlements, and not accepting the two-state solution, Israel has placed itself on the path of demographic change, internal discord among Zionists, and a decrease in Western support.
* The key point is that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would not have been attacked in this style in which the leader of the revolution, five thousand civilians, scientists and military and political leaders were martyred and the infrastructures were hit in this way. The other side’s insistence on the absence of nuclear weapons in Iran is exactly why it can make such attacks possible. If Iran had nuclear weapons, a possible conflict like India and Pakistan would be resolved in a few days.
* In the technical discussion, if there is any doubt, the words of Shahid Abbasi, who said that he has the full ability to make a bomb, as a nuclear scientist is more qualified than Mr. Zarif, who does not have expertise in this field, and his political concern was to prevent Iran from moving towards weapons. Of course, it is possible that after the 12-day war, new restrictions were created that we do not know.
* Exiting the NPT is not necessary now. The country must withdraw when it wants to conduct a nuclear test. Building a nuclear weapon is not against international laws by itself; If you are not a member of the NPT, there is no obligation. Article 10 of the NPT allows withdrawal and participation is voluntary. The main problem is an internal dispute: Parliament suspends interaction with the agency, but a few weeks later officials take a souvenir photo with Grossi in Cairo. If withdrawal from NPT is to be discussed, it should be voted on and its results accepted. Also, the agency did not even issue a statement of condemnation for the attack on the sites under inspection; The claim that Grossi acts as an agent of Israel is not baseless.
31216
