Among America’s extensive array of exorbitant demands in negotiations against Iran, opposition to the very principle of uranium enrichment over the past two decades, and now the unrelenting insistence on the complete removal of all of Iran’s 60% enriched uranium, has been and remains the most central U.S. demand. So much so that even after Iran brought the Strait of Hormuz card into play, Trump—despite showing flexibility on some issues—has refused to back down on the removal of uranium and the shutdown of Iran’s nuclear activities.

Therefore, a critical question arises: Why does the U.S., with such intensity and despite widespread attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities during the Second and Third Wars of Aggression and the assassination of its nuclear scientists, insist on the “nuclear disarmament” of Tehran?

While the driving role of enrichment technology in the country’s scientific progress across various fundamental industrial, economic, agricultural, health, and medical fields is undeniable—and enriched uranium, in the future landscape, holds the status of “oil fields of the 20th century”—it appears that this alone is not the sole reason for America’s insistence on an “Iran without indigenous uranium.”

Perhaps Trump’s personality and his myriad norm-breaking behaviors against Iran and on the international stage, including fulfilling Netanyahu’s ambitions through the “America First” strategy, provide a credible answer to this important question—one that is concerned with the life and death of historical Iran.

The Similarity of Iran and Japan from the Neo-Conservative Perspective

From the American perspective, Japan during World War II was not only unconquerable due to its powerful ideology rooted in historical traditions, but by attacking Pearl Harbor, it demonstrated that it was not a mere spectator to America’s hegemonic actions.

From the perspective of all Neo-Conservatives and warmongers in America, led by Trump, despite the global shock, it was the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that brought the Japanese Empire to its knees.

Now, they believe that Iran—emerging from seven thousand years of proud history and equipped with the liberating school of Shiism, which has woven together national solidarity by blending the ideals of Cyrus with the principles of Imam Ali’s Zulfiqar—will never surrender. This is because historical resistance is the seven-thousand-year-old trait of Iranians. Particularly, the Third War of Aggression demonstrated that even the martyrdom of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and an all-out military invasion with the complicity of the Israeli regime and a handful of traitors to the Islamic world could not force Iran to capitulate. On the contrary, in accordance with its historical tradition, the country emerges stronger than before and showcases new pages of deterrence in the face of its enemies.

The Right to Nuclear Self-Defense

From this perspective, in the minds of the pedophile and child-killing Epstein clique, only a nuclear attack on Iran could bring Tehran to its knees—other plots such as inciting separatists and economic-military blockades are ineffective. However, as long as enriched uranium remains in Iran’s possession, the risk of such an attack remains high due to the possibility of a nuclear response from Tehran—which, by their own admission, possesses the capability to take the final step. This is especially significant given that international law does not prohibit a country facing an existential threat from such a response.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons on July 8, 1996, emphasized: “While the use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to the principles of international humanitarian law, there exists no specific provision in customary or conventional international law that would prohibit a state from using nuclear weapons in the face of an existential threat to its survival or in extreme circumstances of self-defense.”

In effect, the Court indirectly affirmed the right to nuclear self-defense in response to a nuclear attack that endangers a nation’s existence.

Although some in Iran believe that even if uranium is handed over—even without accepting other U.S. conditions—a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran is not credible, one must ask: before their very eyes and to their utter disbelief, the helicopter carrying Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi crashed under suspicious circumstances, Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran, dozens of nuclear scientists along with their families were massacred, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution along with hundreds of commanders and civilians were martyred, elementary school students in Minab were killed, and—in complete disbelief—the IAEA, despite Iran’s membership in the NPT, refused even to condemn these attacks.

The Necessity of Avoiding Strategic Error

Trump’s “implicit threats” regarding a nuclear strike on Iran—from emphasizing that the Japanese Prime Minister understands the meaning of surprise better than others to hinting at the possibility of a “great light” appearing over Iran—are not Trump’s wishful thinking; rather, they are his conviction for bringing Tehran to its knees. Therefore, the decision regarding uranium is a decision about the “being or non-being of historical Iran.” Any mistake in this matter—especially under the guise of a jurisprudential justification that, by its very nature, must remain dynamic in response to fundamental changes in circumstances—could consign historical Iran, after seven thousand years, to annihilation in favor of the “Greater Israel” project. Unfortunately, the emergence of infiltrating voices has led even some countries—whom Trump has mockingly referred to as “turkeys”—to open their mouths and prescribe the removal of Iran’s enriched uranium or its dilution to 3.5%.

The experiences of Pakistan, India, North Korea, and even France demonstrate that nuclearization is not a gift bestowed upon a country by others; rather, it is the result of a nation’s will to “impose its nuclear status upon others” at a golden opportunity—one that fundamentally alters the balance of power and guarantees the country’s defensive, geopolitical, and scientific achievements across other domains.

In the current international anarchy—which we are now at its peak—when one belligerent party possesses nuclear power, balance is only restored when the opposing side also possesses that power, because other components of power cannot substitute for nuclear power, especially against rogue states.

Therefore, it is no surprise that even some independent Western think tanks acknowledge that the key to peace in West Asia lies in nuclear parity and respect for Iran’s rights in this regard. Thus, at such a decisive juncture, not only the heroic people of Iran but also the world and history are watching the momentous decisions of Iranian officials.

Dr. Ahmad Kazemi

Professor of International Law at the University