The role of Ayatollah Khamenei's Fatwa against nuclear weapons is an open question that merits attention. In an anonymous letter, an Iranian colleague analyses the situation.
Thank you for sharing this. I couldn’t help but feel troubled while reading it, not because I object to the analysis. On the contrary, it was well thought out and highly informative.
What disturbs me is the underlying assumption " in the air" which seems to define the perspective of the Collective West: that Iran is somehow obliged to explain, justify, or prove its intentions regarding nuclear weapons to the very powers that have acted with open hostility toward it for decades.
There is a presumption that Iran and its people are lesser, that they must adhere to non-proliferation agreements and submit to inspections by foreign agencies, even when those agencies have been infiltrated by Zionist spies. And regardless of Iran’s actual intentions, or the fact that it has upheld its commitments, it is still expected to endure attacks and crippling sanctions at the whim of Imperialist war-mongers.
The fact that Iran did not pursue nuclear weapons, even after suffering the eight-year crime against humanity perpetrated by the West using Iraq as a proxy, is at least to me, evidence of moral restraint on the part of its leadership. With deep shame, I must admit I cannot say the same of any country within the so-called Collective West.
I fear that this very morality may one day lead to Iran’s downfall. Iran willingness to cease attacks recently is only pause , the Zionist regime and its backers in Washington have no intention to leave Iran in peace.
My only objection to the original post lies in the phrasing of the question: “If the survival of the government...” This is not simply about the survival of a government. This is an existential threat to a people of Iran, to the Iranian nation, its culture, its history, and its sovereignty. Look what they have done to Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Libya ...do we really believe these war-mongers are not going to attack again?
The empire’s war-mongers have thirsted for Iranian blood ever since the 1979 hostage crisis. The Zionist occupiers of Palestine have relentlessly sought to destroy every nation and every people who dare object to their treatment of the Palestinians.
The Iranian people have every right to determine their future as they see fit. They have never sought isolation from the world—nor have the people of North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela. That isolation has been imposed from the outside.
The Collective West has been effectively at war with Iran ever since its people overthrew the puppet despot Shah. Today, Iran is not only fighting for its own survival, it is fighting a war for the dignity, agency, and future of all humanity. Will the rest of world fight along Iran or will it watch as it did with Gaza?
Thank you for writing this, I had the same thoughts when reading the article. To me, it seems written from a Zionist perspective; perhaps that is why the author chooses to remain anonymous.
I wrote about the Iranian nuclear situation as well, if you're interested, you can read it here:
I read your post, but I’m unable to comment on it.
Please tell me you’re not one of these 'Pay to Have Say' writers?
I’m a supporter of nuclear energy, but no argument is going to be heard by those who cannot control their emotions. And that’s pretty much all of us at one time or another.
You stated, "I can only think of one reason Americans & Israelis would not want Iran to have energy, and that reason is: Racism." If only it were so simple. I’m sure racism plays a part, given the imperialists’ obsession with being superior to everyone else.
But have you considered that they are simply evil? Evil needs destruction, hate, and war to flourish and for the past 25 years, it has flourished well. Why is it that the Zionsits and Americans have to crush and dominate all who dare to question their belligerency , especially if you have some resources they can plunder?
I’m not speaking of evil from the depths of hell, nor do I think Trump and Netanyahu have tails (though they might have horns). But it is pure evil, an evil born of their belligerent supremacy, an evil that has consumed their sense of humanity and reason.
I don`t feel the writer had a Zionist prospective, but after decades of Western propaganda being bombed into you literally ad figuratively its not surprising that somethings sounded a bit too defensive.
Iran , the Iranians owes no one any explanation about anything by my account, the Western world has for far too long treated Iran and its people unfairly. Far too long subjected them to slander, abuse , sanctions, accusations and attacks.
We speak of regime wars, but fact is the Imperialists are not interested in simply regime change, the want to dominate and exploit , if that means destroying a nations , they have, and will do.
Its certainly some strange poetic Irony , that we now look at "communists" Russia and China to protect humanity, protect the sovereignty of nations and peoples right to self determination, and democracy.
No, I am not a "pay to have a say" writers, I have turned off all commenting on my articles; they are meant for the reader to mull over and discuss with their own friends, family, and colleagues, not online... like in the good ole days.
"The good old days"; you mean when TV, radio, and newspapers told us what to think and we nodded along? I don’t know what world you grew up in, but in mine, families, friends, and communities rarely sat around discussing anything beyond their own immediate concerns.
I’m not your friend, not family, not a neighbor, but I appreciate that you responded. You didn’t have to, but you chose to engage, and that matters.
I believe our ability to share our views openly, with anyone, anywhere, is one of the few meaningful freedoms left. Restricting that exchange to familiar circles feels like another way to contain and fragment us. We already have more than enough forces working to divide and isolate people. We don’t need to help them by building more walls around our conversations.
That's a shame, sounds like you missed out on a lot in your childhood. We did sit around with family and friends and discuss politics, pretty much every single day. Those were my good ole days, clearly very different to your not-so-good ole days.
This is a sharp, grounded analysis, and honestly, it hits at something a lot of people overlook: Iran’s nuclear stance is a layered survival strategy that plays the long game.
What stood out most to me was the point about ambiguity as endurance. That really feels like the heart of it. Tehran’s not chasing nukes in the North Korea sense, they’re threading a needle. Keep the option open, stay under the threshold, and signal just enough capability to deter without triggering full-blown isolation or war.
And the fatwa? Yeah, it’s there, but as the piece shows, it’s more flexible than it looks. Framing it as a “secondary ruling” gives the leadership room to pivot if things heat up.
Which makes total sense if you’re operating in a system where power is fluid, and survival is the ultimate test. The religious justification becomes a tool, not a cage.
This whole thing reminds me that we often talk about doctrine like it’s set in stone, when in reality, it bends with pressure.
Iran’s just been very careful about how and when to flex. Maybe too careful.
This is a well-written piece, but I respectfully disagree with the anonymous author's premise that we don't know what the Iranian Government is doing. We do know, we may not know the exact details of how, who, when, where, etc., but we certainly know the what and the why. I wrote about this, a little over 2 weeks ago: https://sarahalard.substack.com/p/its-not-nuclear-weapons-stupid
Iran’s strategy to “demonstrate strength without overstepping into full escalation” could prove fatal simply because of the way US foreign policy functions. See this very interesting argument from Egor Kotkin 👇
a further comment, there is an active campaign by a faction in Iran that want to pressure the current Supreme Leader into overturning past fatwa for the reason stated in this opinion piece and likely why it is anonomyous. they are well organized and well funded and frank they gave 67 percent of iran's public in support of their position. I believe that your contributor belongs to this faction.
The author has chosen one tree out of a forest and one weapon out of many.
In the late 1990s I was focused on studies of Islamic History and my thesis was on Jihad, its permissability and practical application. In these studies I neccesarily had to review every reference to war in the Quran, in Hadith and fatwa from all mandheb. In so doing I also came into possession of text translated into English that detailed Iman Khomeni's fatwa and his discussions of war and the conflict between Iran and the West. I was distinctly impressed by his discussion about how the West had created the nuclear weapons for the purpose of tyranny and to always threaten muslims and other people to complete annihilation as they even demonstrated on Japan. He went on to say that no muslim should ever under any circumstances condone the USE of such weapons, that his own fatwa forbade it and that this was consistent with the entire body of fiqh within Islam that forbids the killing of innocents and random destruction.
While it is true that Ayatollah Khomeni hardened his postition and made the statement about preserving the Islamic Republic and the famous comment about "smash their mouths" in the year or so prior to his passing which brought him into conflict with Ayatollah Montazeri whom he had placed under house arrest allegedly for telling the Supreme Leader he had gone too far... but that us another subject. Despite this hardening there are no fatwa supporting this position neither did Ayatollah Khomeni overturn his prior fatwa.
Nuclear weapons are haram, their use contradicts the entire body of fiqh within Islam in regard to the conduct of war, and are finally specifically forbidden by Imam Khomeni's fatwa.
The govenment of Iran is doing what they told everyone that they are doing. They will never build an atomic bomb.
In a comment on Glen Diesen's post regard his recent interview with Ted Postal I explain in further detail how Khameni became Supreme Leader despite not being a marja at the time and that until recently he hasnt had the moral authority to contradict all past fatwa on the basis of ijtihad, and in my assessment with NEVER do so. Insh'Allah!
Nuclear weapons i am suprised as a possible suggested option. With a why not question.As part of neutrality studies?? This would then be a why not question for all countries. The fallacy of deterrence is seen by proxy wars. They still continue long and drawn out and brutal. There is the gamble that Russia can hit UK and do a lot more damage to us than we can to them. Allies change to enemies. UK relies on USA for our program. Will they really come to our aid. Or see an oppurtunity???
This is the most lucid and informative piece I've read or heard, in what has been a confusing and incoherent period.
Thank you for sharing this. I couldn’t help but feel troubled while reading it, not because I object to the analysis. On the contrary, it was well thought out and highly informative.
What disturbs me is the underlying assumption " in the air" which seems to define the perspective of the Collective West: that Iran is somehow obliged to explain, justify, or prove its intentions regarding nuclear weapons to the very powers that have acted with open hostility toward it for decades.
There is a presumption that Iran and its people are lesser, that they must adhere to non-proliferation agreements and submit to inspections by foreign agencies, even when those agencies have been infiltrated by Zionist spies. And regardless of Iran’s actual intentions, or the fact that it has upheld its commitments, it is still expected to endure attacks and crippling sanctions at the whim of Imperialist war-mongers.
The fact that Iran did not pursue nuclear weapons, even after suffering the eight-year crime against humanity perpetrated by the West using Iraq as a proxy, is at least to me, evidence of moral restraint on the part of its leadership. With deep shame, I must admit I cannot say the same of any country within the so-called Collective West.
I fear that this very morality may one day lead to Iran’s downfall. Iran willingness to cease attacks recently is only pause , the Zionist regime and its backers in Washington have no intention to leave Iran in peace.
My only objection to the original post lies in the phrasing of the question: “If the survival of the government...” This is not simply about the survival of a government. This is an existential threat to a people of Iran, to the Iranian nation, its culture, its history, and its sovereignty. Look what they have done to Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Libya ...do we really believe these war-mongers are not going to attack again?
The empire’s war-mongers have thirsted for Iranian blood ever since the 1979 hostage crisis. The Zionist occupiers of Palestine have relentlessly sought to destroy every nation and every people who dare object to their treatment of the Palestinians.
The Iranian people have every right to determine their future as they see fit. They have never sought isolation from the world—nor have the people of North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela. That isolation has been imposed from the outside.
The Collective West has been effectively at war with Iran ever since its people overthrew the puppet despot Shah. Today, Iran is not only fighting for its own survival, it is fighting a war for the dignity, agency, and future of all humanity. Will the rest of world fight along Iran or will it watch as it did with Gaza?
Thank you for writing this, I had the same thoughts when reading the article. To me, it seems written from a Zionist perspective; perhaps that is why the author chooses to remain anonymous.
I wrote about the Iranian nuclear situation as well, if you're interested, you can read it here:
https://sarahalard.substack.com/p/its-not-nuclear-weapons-stupid
I read your post, but I’m unable to comment on it.
Please tell me you’re not one of these 'Pay to Have Say' writers?
I’m a supporter of nuclear energy, but no argument is going to be heard by those who cannot control their emotions. And that’s pretty much all of us at one time or another.
You stated, "I can only think of one reason Americans & Israelis would not want Iran to have energy, and that reason is: Racism." If only it were so simple. I’m sure racism plays a part, given the imperialists’ obsession with being superior to everyone else.
But have you considered that they are simply evil? Evil needs destruction, hate, and war to flourish and for the past 25 years, it has flourished well. Why is it that the Zionsits and Americans have to crush and dominate all who dare to question their belligerency , especially if you have some resources they can plunder?
I’m not speaking of evil from the depths of hell, nor do I think Trump and Netanyahu have tails (though they might have horns). But it is pure evil, an evil born of their belligerent supremacy, an evil that has consumed their sense of humanity and reason.
Thank-you for sharing,
I don`t feel the writer had a Zionist prospective, but after decades of Western propaganda being bombed into you literally ad figuratively its not surprising that somethings sounded a bit too defensive.
Iran , the Iranians owes no one any explanation about anything by my account, the Western world has for far too long treated Iran and its people unfairly. Far too long subjected them to slander, abuse , sanctions, accusations and attacks.
We speak of regime wars, but fact is the Imperialists are not interested in simply regime change, the want to dominate and exploit , if that means destroying a nations , they have, and will do.
Its certainly some strange poetic Irony , that we now look at "communists" Russia and China to protect humanity, protect the sovereignty of nations and peoples right to self determination, and democracy.
No, I am not a "pay to have a say" writers, I have turned off all commenting on my articles; they are meant for the reader to mull over and discuss with their own friends, family, and colleagues, not online... like in the good ole days.
"The good old days"; you mean when TV, radio, and newspapers told us what to think and we nodded along? I don’t know what world you grew up in, but in mine, families, friends, and communities rarely sat around discussing anything beyond their own immediate concerns.
I’m not your friend, not family, not a neighbor, but I appreciate that you responded. You didn’t have to, but you chose to engage, and that matters.
I believe our ability to share our views openly, with anyone, anywhere, is one of the few meaningful freedoms left. Restricting that exchange to familiar circles feels like another way to contain and fragment us. We already have more than enough forces working to divide and isolate people. We don’t need to help them by building more walls around our conversations.
That's a shame, sounds like you missed out on a lot in your childhood. We did sit around with family and friends and discuss politics, pretty much every single day. Those were my good ole days, clearly very different to your not-so-good ole days.
For me, when it comes to politics, "Western" and "Zionist" are synonymous, easily interchangeable.
Would urge you to rethink such intellectual laziness.
This is a sharp, grounded analysis, and honestly, it hits at something a lot of people overlook: Iran’s nuclear stance is a layered survival strategy that plays the long game.
What stood out most to me was the point about ambiguity as endurance. That really feels like the heart of it. Tehran’s not chasing nukes in the North Korea sense, they’re threading a needle. Keep the option open, stay under the threshold, and signal just enough capability to deter without triggering full-blown isolation or war.
And the fatwa? Yeah, it’s there, but as the piece shows, it’s more flexible than it looks. Framing it as a “secondary ruling” gives the leadership room to pivot if things heat up.
Which makes total sense if you’re operating in a system where power is fluid, and survival is the ultimate test. The religious justification becomes a tool, not a cage.
This whole thing reminds me that we often talk about doctrine like it’s set in stone, when in reality, it bends with pressure.
Iran’s just been very careful about how and when to flex. Maybe too careful.
This is a well-written piece, but I respectfully disagree with the anonymous author's premise that we don't know what the Iranian Government is doing. We do know, we may not know the exact details of how, who, when, where, etc., but we certainly know the what and the why. I wrote about this, a little over 2 weeks ago: https://sarahalard.substack.com/p/its-not-nuclear-weapons-stupid
Iran’s strategy to “demonstrate strength without overstepping into full escalation” could prove fatal simply because of the way US foreign policy functions. See this very interesting argument from Egor Kotkin 👇
https://open.substack.com/pub/krystalkyleandfriends/p/analysis-why-trumps-war-on-iran-will
a further comment, there is an active campaign by a faction in Iran that want to pressure the current Supreme Leader into overturning past fatwa for the reason stated in this opinion piece and likely why it is anonomyous. they are well organized and well funded and frank they gave 67 percent of iran's public in support of their position. I believe that your contributor belongs to this faction.
I respectfully refute this 100 percent.
The author has chosen one tree out of a forest and one weapon out of many.
In the late 1990s I was focused on studies of Islamic History and my thesis was on Jihad, its permissability and practical application. In these studies I neccesarily had to review every reference to war in the Quran, in Hadith and fatwa from all mandheb. In so doing I also came into possession of text translated into English that detailed Iman Khomeni's fatwa and his discussions of war and the conflict between Iran and the West. I was distinctly impressed by his discussion about how the West had created the nuclear weapons for the purpose of tyranny and to always threaten muslims and other people to complete annihilation as they even demonstrated on Japan. He went on to say that no muslim should ever under any circumstances condone the USE of such weapons, that his own fatwa forbade it and that this was consistent with the entire body of fiqh within Islam that forbids the killing of innocents and random destruction.
While it is true that Ayatollah Khomeni hardened his postition and made the statement about preserving the Islamic Republic and the famous comment about "smash their mouths" in the year or so prior to his passing which brought him into conflict with Ayatollah Montazeri whom he had placed under house arrest allegedly for telling the Supreme Leader he had gone too far... but that us another subject. Despite this hardening there are no fatwa supporting this position neither did Ayatollah Khomeni overturn his prior fatwa.
Nuclear weapons are haram, their use contradicts the entire body of fiqh within Islam in regard to the conduct of war, and are finally specifically forbidden by Imam Khomeni's fatwa.
The govenment of Iran is doing what they told everyone that they are doing. They will never build an atomic bomb.
In a comment on Glen Diesen's post regard his recent interview with Ted Postal I explain in further detail how Khameni became Supreme Leader despite not being a marja at the time and that until recently he hasnt had the moral authority to contradict all past fatwa on the basis of ijtihad, and in my assessment with NEVER do so. Insh'Allah!
Nuclear weapons i am suprised as a possible suggested option. With a why not question.As part of neutrality studies?? This would then be a why not question for all countries. The fallacy of deterrence is seen by proxy wars. They still continue long and drawn out and brutal. There is the gamble that Russia can hit UK and do a lot more damage to us than we can to them. Allies change to enemies. UK relies on USA for our program. Will they really come to our aid. Or see an oppurtunity???
There are no allies, only common interests among imperialist war-mongers.
Allegiance, honor, humanity, dignity, respect, these are just words, and in the mouths of hypocritical liars , ring hollow and meaningless
That is exactly my point.
Great, we`re in agreement