Iran has taken a moral stance on nuclear weapons, to not produce or use them. However, the morons that do use nukes say Iran is trying to, and even people that support Iran say they should, to deter the morons. The amoral position is that Iran could have avoided this war entirely, if they'd just abandoned their moral position on nuclear weapons. To me this is part of the same imperial misunderstanding, that everybody should be like White Empire, even in opposition. But Iran has a different perspective, and I trust them. So let's discuss them. Should Iran have nukes, or are they better off without them?

The Nuclear Fetish

America is the only country to use nuclear weapons, and they never cease to be amused by them. Having worked for them twice, they view nukes as the perennial solution. Aliens? Nuke them (Independence Day, 1996, doesn't work). Duke? Nukem (1991). Asteroid? Nuke it (Armageddon, 1998, works). AI? Nuke everybody (Mission Impossible, 2025, aborted).

Nukes are also the Sum of All Fears, the perennial problem. The great fear—again from the only people to do nuclear terrorism—is that non-White people might get nuclear weapons and use them. Hence you get movies like True Lies, 1994; Arabs with nukes, very bad. Or Goldeneye, 1995 and The World Is Not Enough, 1999; Russians with nukes, why they made THAAD. Or Terminator, 1984; AI with nukes, negates MAD. You see how it works.

Nukes are both the problem and the solution, the fear (when other people have them) and the hope (when we use them). This has conditioned a deep and well-rehearsed nuclear fetish in Americans, which you can see in the news that they also experience as entertainment. You can see this comorbidity fetish playing out in the Ramadan War with Iran which, frustratingly for Americans of all sorts, has a completely different perspective.

The Nuclear Fatwa

Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: He opposed the idea of building a nuclear bomb.

Iran has an almost mythical fatwa (religious ruling) against nuclear weapons. I say mythical because everybody cites it but nobody sources it, I can't find any particular document. The closest I could find is a quote from the martyr Khamenei at a conference in 2010. It says,

We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation which is itself a victim of chemical weapons feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as haraam and believe that it is everyone's duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster.

This is the perspective that White Empire (America, UK, 'Israel', France, etc) has towards other nations, because they are immoral charlatans. They make a big show about non-proliferation, but never give up their nuclear weapons. Indeed, they let 'Israel' have them illegally, and in mass quantities among mass murderers. Iran takes the actually moral position here, which is not proliferating nukes themselves, despite having every ability to do so. And, of course, they have gotten nothing but punished for this, because international law is just a stick used for beating non-White people.

However, non-proliferation was Khamenei's guns, or lack thereof, and he stuck to them, God bless him. Nuclear weapons are not the solution to a problem, they are just a problem, and Iran won't use them.

The Ramadan War

Now let's return to the Ramadan War, which is a clash between these worldviews.

The Satanic Public's View On Nukes

The American propaganda this time around is just a lazy reboot, of course. The Ramadan War is the Iraq War except much lower quality, direct to VCR. Iran is about to have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and we've got to stop them, dun dun duuun! America really ran out of ideas in the 1980s, cinematically and politically, since Ronald Reagan merged the two. Trump has tried other plots, like Iran has been attacking America for 47 years, you just missed those episodes, or Iran threatens our ally 'Israel', which has been useful to us in episodes you missed also. But the nuclear threat is what America returns to, like Pavlovian dogs of war returning to their own radioactive vomit. And enough of the idiot population eats it, and still salivates for blood though, interestingly, in different directions.

The overactive American imagination has been long trained to fear the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of non-White people, and to desire the use of nuclear weapons to discipline them. Thus the fear (for the world) is not that Iran has nuclear weapons but that America (via 'Israel', it's all one White Empire) will use them. Thus enough White people in the cable-TV colosseum are sold on this latest entertainment, on racism alone.

However, even people who break out of the racist conditioning still think as White people do. They might oppose America now, but they still think like Americans. They still want to tell Iran what to do. Such people will say this would have never happened if Iran had nukes. Or, Iran must have secret nukes already. Or, now that Khamenei is dead, I hope they hurry up. This is better, I guess, but it's still coming from the conditioned perspective that nukes are a solution to problems, which is not the Iranian perspective at all. And if you're really going to support Iran, you have to start by respecting them.

The Islamic Republic's View On Nukes

If you understanding that Iran is an Islamic Republic and take their faith seriously as a governing philosophy, you can just read the Quran, which I turn to for my daily news. In that, Allah says (via his Messenger, pbuh),

And fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression—for surely, God does not love aggressors.

Slay them wherever you find them [those who fight against you]; drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for [religious] persecution is worse than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, slay them—such is the reward for those who deny the truth—but if they desist, then surely God is most forgiving and merciful.

Fight them until there is no more fitna [religious persecution] and religion belongs to God alone. If they desist, then let there be no hostility, except towards aggressors.

A sacred month for a sacred month: violation of sanctity calls for fair retribution. Thus you may exact retribution from whoever transgresses against you, in proportion to his transgression. (2:190)

I suppose everything is a reboot in the Muslim world also, though on a much longer loop. It feels like They're talking about the Ramadan War now, when I read the Quran from long ago. The relevant point here is the latter, that “you may exact retribution from whoever transgresses against you, in proportion to his transgression.” Proportionality is key, as it is in international law.

You can see Iran follows this principle, they did not fight until attacked, they did not hit oil and gas fields until they were attacked; they always act defensively and in proportion (though they do not hit schools, there are rules). In this sense, Iran might acquire and use nukes if they were attacked with them first, but not before. And, indeed, their actions fit this view. Iran keeps enough enriched uranium to produce a nuke, but has not done so. This might seem maddening from a pure game theory perspective (just do it!), but they're not playing, and certainly not for the cheap seats in the Colosseum. Iran actually is an Islamic Republic and they behave accordingly, for a higher audience than this world.

Using Your Own Reason

I know a lot of my readers are allergic to the concept of religion and don't take it as seriously as I do, so let's get Kantian (like the martyr Ali Larijani would). Let's critique the Iranian policy using pure reason. What benefit would nukes provide Iran? And no, a flippant comparison to North Korea doesn't count.

Any situation where Iran used a nuke would be shitting where they eat, and where they will not leave. Unlike 'Israelis', Iranians are native to the land. They are not trying to uproot olive trees in Palestine, nor salt the earth if they can't have it, all of which nuking 'Israel' would do. Plus the fallout would fall on them, plus the direct impact of the inevitable retribution. Of what use is such a weapon? Why wield a weapon you can't use?

The answer, of course, is deterrence, but I submit that this is a largely mythical concept. When have you seen 'Israelis' deterred from doing anything? They have unleashed every horror without honor and no rational calculation seems to stop them. 'Israel' would love to use a nuke, does not really care about ruining Palestine, and has lots of them to boot. As the saying goes, never wrestle with a (nuclear) pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

Furthermore, deterrence to nukes does not have to be nuclear. It just has to be proportionally destructive. America actually killed more people with conventional munitions than nukes (in Japan, Germany, and Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). Just regular burning people to death with lots of bombs rather than one nuke. Nukes are cinematically very compelling, but tactically you can do the same thing with regular shelling. Even using depleted uranium, as the Americans did in Fallujah, caused more birth defects and other horrors than Hiroshima. A nuke is not a necessary weapon, unless you're a script writer with limited patience. You can do terrible things with conventional weapons, just slower. The whole world, in fact, has seen at least 10 nukes dropped on Gaza, just in smaller packages. It took two years rather than 10 seconds, but the equivalent damage still happened.

That is to say, if Iran wanted to 'nuke' 'Israel' in response, they could simply unleash all of their 'regular' missiles that they have been holding in reserve (they say they're ready for a 10-year war, and I believe them). That would achieve the same result (Mutually Assured Destruction) without the radiation. Somewhere in their dim, racist brains the White Empire knows this, and it applies some level of deterrence. At least as much is possible from such demons.

However, if Iran did have nukes, its enemies could (and perhaps should) treat every missile launch as potentially nuclear! Thus having nukes would limit Iran's use of conventional arms. Having nukes, even just as deterrence, would give the enemy any excuse to treat any missile launch as nuclear, and nuke them 'back' first. As it is, the enemy knows there's no nukes forthcoming (Iran is the most inspected country on Earth) and so Iran can keep the conventional missiles coming. Having nukes would break the convention, and change their strategic calculus entirely.

That is, having nukes would provide no benefit to Iran (they don't want to nuke Palestine) and would actually reduce their ability to fight back ('Israel' would like any excuse to nuke Iran). It's a lose-lose, unless this is a casual debate you're having on the Internet, with no skin in the game to be fried off when the nukes hit.

Why Iran Is Better Off

Now let me offer my own opinion, which is that I support Iran. I do not try to map Western views onto them, and I try to understand them on their own terms. I approach them with respect and try to learn from them, especially if I don't immediately understand what they're doing. The first point is that Iran obviously takes their faith seriously and I agree with Khamenei that nuclear weapons are bad, I think everybody does. This is both a Quranic imperative and a Kantian categorical imperative. I don't know when everybody got so cynical, but Iran is showing in many ways that taking a moral stand is possible and I support this wholeheartedly.

And even if you want to get realpolitik about it, you can see that Iran is currently walking a strategic tightrope quite adroitly. We have more to learn from them than teach. Iran has not competed with the White Empire on its own terms (Air Force, Navy, nukes) but have instead outcompeted them asymmetrically (missiles, land as aircraft carrier, targeted attrition). This is working and, more to the point, Iran is doing all the work, so who am I to criticize them? I assume the Resistance knows what they're doing, they assume Allah knows what They're doing, but when you or I assume it just makes asses out of u and me. Why should Iran emulate the amoral morons of the West, especially as they're losing?

The whole nuclear fetish is, frankly, overblown in the West. They've made lots of movies about it, but only used nukes twice and it's not clear they were necessary then. Nukes are only good for distant terrorism, which is not Iran's objective. They're not trying to nuke Palestine, they're trying to liberate it. So why build nuclear weapons, especially if just having them them makes you more likely to be hit yourself? Fundamentally, Iran is better off without nukes because they're better people and they know what they're doing. This is a battle between good and evil and I don't think you win it by being more evil. So more (nuclear) power to the Islamic Republic of Iran.