For over 30 years, Iran has been accused by Israel of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and that this would represent a “existential danger” for the Jewish state. This alleged threat justified the new war of Israel with unpredictable consequences.
But, after all, what is the history of the Iran’s nuclear program and why the Western powers question the Iranian project while they do not charge the same of Israel, the only Middle Eastern country that did not sign the Non -Nuclear Weapons Non -Proliferation (PMS) treaty?
For geopolitical analysts consulted by Agência Brasil, the war seeks to fly and economically weaken Iran to impose Israel’s hegemony throughout the Middle East. Experts also suggest that the International Atomic Energy Agency (AIEA) may be manipulated by announcing that Iran was not fulfilling its obligations with the TNP.
Organize your financial life with AI
Unlike Israel, Iran has always submitted its nuclear program to international inspections. In 2012, with articulation of Brazil’s diplomacy, Iran accepted the US government proposal (USA) to control uranium enrichment. However, then -President Barack Obama retreated from his own proposal, maintaining sanctions against the Tehran government.
Following the failure of these negotiations, the history professor at the University of Brasilia (UnB) Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, in his book The Second Cold War, evaluated, in 2013, that the conflict around Iran’s nuclear program “as an existential threat [a Israel]never passed the encompassing to cover up the contradictions of power and predominance in the region. ”
By agreeing with the flag, the political scientist there, the author of studies on Asia and the Islamic world, told Agência Brasil that Israel and the Western powers seek, with the current war, to impose Tel Aviv’s political, military and economic hegemony throughout the Middle East.
Continues after advertising
“Israel does not accept that any of its neighbors have industry or economic power to become a hegemonic power in the region. To have hegemony, Israel does not depend only that the country does not have nuclear weaponry, it also depends that the country is always impoverished,” says Ramos.
The Professor of International Relations Robson Valdez, from the Brazilian Institute of Teaching, Development and Research (IDP), stressed that the current war is within the context of the conflict in the Gaza Strip and that the AIEA may be manipulated to justify the aggression to Iran.
“This change in the IAEA approach has to be evaluated also within this context of probable agency instrumentalization to legitimize US entry into the general conflict of the Middle East. In my view, [o primeiro-ministro de Israel, Benjamin] Netanyahu seeks to definitively obtain military superiority throughout the region, ”said Valdez.
Continues after advertising
The origin
The consecrated Brazilian historian Moniz Bandeira wrote that the Iran’s nuclear program began in the 1960s, supported by Germany and the US, during the 25th anniversary of the Shah Reza Pahlavi.
Supported by the West, Pahlavi’s dictatorial regime took power after CIA and other Western powers promoting the 1953 coup d’état, overthrowing the nationalist government of Mohammed Mossadgh, which had nationalized the rich Iranian oil wells, which contradicted the interest of Western oil companies.
In 1979, the Shah was overthrown by the Iranian Revolution that “ended the subordination of Iran to Western powers,” according to Moniz Bandeira. However, Ayatollah Khomeini, as the country’s supreme leader, said atomic bombs were contrary to the spirit of Islam and issued a fatwâ (kind of resolution of Islam’s religious authority) prohibiting their development.
Continues after advertising
Only in 1989, after Khomeini’s death, did the new Aiatola Ali Khamenei resume the country’s nuclear program, always denying that Iran would intend to build nuclear weapons. Since then, the country seeks an agreement with the AIEA. In 2005, New Fatwâ banned the production, storage and use of nuclear weapons.
The Geopolitical Analyst Ali Ramos evaluates that the Iran’s Nuclear Program has always been an energy need. “Iran has a historical problem, since the time of the Shah, for energy creation, to develop its industry. Iran has some nuclear plants for it,” he said.
Historian Moniz Bandeira, in turn, pointed out that Iran’s nuclear program is equivalent to the Mossadegh oil industry nationalization project before the 1953 coup. “It’s a statement of pride with West protection,” wrote the expert.
Continues after advertising
Brazil and Türkiye
In 2012, Brazilian and Turkish diplomacy articulated, at the request of the United States, according to the Iranian government. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government has accepted the Obama Government proposal to transfer 1,200 pounds of uranium under -enriched (LED) to Turkey, receiving fuel for their nuclear plants from Russia.
The negotiations were conducted by the then Foreign Minister of Brazil, Ambassador Celso Amorim, current special advisor of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
“Tehran’s declaration, precisely, answered all the aspects of President Obama. Upon seeing that the diplomatic management of Brazil and Turkey reached success, President Obama betrayed. He retreated,” explained Moniz Bandeira.
Continues after advertising
The Brazilian historian concluded that, in fact, Obama’s goal was not to reach an agreement, but to overthrow the Shiite regime of Ayatollahs “through new sanctions, which could clog the economic development of Iran.”
Professor Robson Valdez said that the US President did not accept the agreement articulated because Brazil and Turkey are average countries, “having no relevance and international political capital to lead an agreement of this wingspan.”
Historian Moniz Bandeira also cited Aiatola’s argument Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad so as not to develop atomic bomb. “Nuclear weapons possession would only give Iran a small short -term regional advantage that would turn into a long -term vulnerability, by triggering the Middle East a arms race, with the participation of Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia,” he wrote.
2015 Agreement
Three years later, in 2015, Obama sewed an agreement with Iran: the joint integral action plan (JCPOA), to limit Tehran’s nuclear activities in exchange for the relief of sanctions.
The plan was attended by all five United Nations Security Council countries: China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, besides Germany, and would have represented a thawing of Tehran assets in the $ 100 billion.
Iran had committed to altering its nuclear production matrix to make the production of plutonium unfeasible, which can be used in the manufacture of nuclear bombs as well as uranium. After the agreement was concluded, the AIEA said in January 2016 that Iran was fulfilling its part in the agreement.
According to Professor Robson Valdez, this agreement was similar to that sewn by Brazil and was systematically boycotted by Israel.
“It was an intense process of Israeli lobby, mainly within the US and Europe. The idea was to influence public opinion and was successful. One of the campaign promises of the first Trump administration was to leave the agreement, a campaign that was funded by Israeli lobby,” said Valdez.
Trump government
In 2018, unilaterally and without consulting European partners, the US withdrew from the agreement and reintroduced sanctions against Iran, increasing tensions in the Middle East. Europeans still tried to save the 2015 plan, without success.
In announcing the decision, Trump called the disastrous agreement and said that the “celebrated pact should never have been signed,” because he did not provide guarantees that Iran has abandoned ballistic missiles.
The political scientist there Ramos estimates that Trump broke with the agreement not for problems in compromising Iran’s commitments, but to meet the most conservative actors supporting his government, which faced internal problems.
“It was an attempt to get popularity at home, trying to show strength. With Trump’s irresponsibility, he created one of the most complex problems of 21st century geopolitics. All this just to get internal support,” he said.
Aieea
President Joe Biden’s government maintained the situation as it was, without closing a new deal with Iran. In Trump’s current term, Tehran returned to negotiating with Washington in Oman. Negotiations advanced to the sixth round when Israel attacked the country, leading Iran to suspend negotiations and accuse the US of complicity with Netanyahu.
The expert Ali Ramos said the negotiations were around the debate on Iran being able to enrich uranium up to 20% to be able to “produce isotopes for cancer treatment, to treat leukemia, these issues.”
One day before the attack, AIA approved a harsh resolution stating that Iran was not fulfilling its TNP obligations. According to the document, “the agency is unable to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.” Iran reacted by saying that the decision was “politically motivated” and accused the western powers of articulating the resolution.
The geopolitical analyst Ali Ramos said that all inspections were being made regularly and that, from 2024, a change in the agency’s stance.
“AIAE has on its site that the inspectors were there. All inspections were being done regularly. And then there was a big key turn, when Netanyahu began to signal that wanted to attack Iran, then the agency changed the speech,” he noted.
Ali Ramos added that this type of maneuver is not new on the international scene and quoted the Korea War, which was locked with UN troops “no legal basis”.
“Basically, it is multilateral organisms being used as arms of Israel and the US. We must remember that we are in a moment of total destruction of international law. No more international law will be left after this war,” he said.
