How The United States Forced Iran To Pursue A Nuclear Programme
When American scientists helped install a nuclear reactor in Tehran in the 1960s, they did so under the banner of peace. Decades later, US warplanes bombed Iranian nuclear sites to halt what they now see as a threat.
It began with the 'Atoms for Peace' programme, launched by President Dwight D Eisenhower to share civilian nuclear technology with allies. At the time, Iran, ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a model Cold War partner, secular, West-leaning, and eager to modernise. The US responded by helping install the Tehran Research Reactor, training Iranian scientists at elite institutions like MIT, and encouraging partnerships with European allies.
To Washington, it was a strategy to extend influence, contain Soviet power, and showcase the "benevolent" use of atomic energy. In practice, it created an entire ecosystem of nuclear capacity inside Iran that would long outlast the Shah's regime.
"We gave Iran its starter kit," said Robert Einhorn, a former US arms control negotiator and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "We weren't terribly concerned about nuclear proliferation in those days, so we were pretty promiscuous about transferring nuclear technology."
The concern was not about what Iran might do with the technology one day, but what the Soviet Union could do at the time.
Under the Shah, Iran's ambitions scaled. Despite sitting on massive oil reserves, Iran was determined to become a nuclear power in both symbolism and capability. France and Germany signed multibillion-dollar reactor deals.
US media ran ads touting the Shah's responsible embrace of nuclear power. Behind the public enthusiasm, intelligence officials in Washington were growing wary. The Shah's insistence on uranium enrichment, legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but dual-use in nature, was raising flags.
By the late 1970s, US policymakers tried to restrain Iran's growing autonomy by modifying reactor contracts and insisting on fuel restrictions. But by then, the nuclear infrastructure was already embedded.
And then came the 1979 Islamic Revolution, sweeping away the Shah from power and replacing him with a clerical regime hostile to the US.
US-Iranian relations collapsed overnight.
Initially, the new rulers had little to no interest in the nuclear project. It was expensive, Western-built, and closely tied to the ousted regime. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini saw little value in continuing it.
Iran's brutal war with Iraq in the 1980s, marked by chemical weapons and massive casualties, forced its leadership to reassess national defence. Once again, nuclear technology looked less like a luxury and more like a deterrent. But this time, the US wasn't the supplier.
Instead, Iran turned to Pakistan.
There, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, provided Iran with designs and components for uranium enrichment centrifuges. That transfer, based on stolen European technology, gave Iran its first real tools for weaponization of nuclear energy.
Yet the foundation that enabled Iran to absorb that technology had been laid by the United States decades earlier.
By the early 2000s, the world discovered Iran's secret enrichment sites. Tehran claimed it was within its rights under the NPT. The US and its allies were unconvinced.
From there, the crisis hardened: sanctions, sabotage, and shadow wars replaced dialogue.
The 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the JCPOA, briefly froze the crisis. But the Trump administration withdrew from the deal in 2018.
That unravelling triggered a return to confrontation, ending in the very airstrikes meant to destroy the kind of capability the US once helped cultivate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
4 minutes ago
- NDTV
$1,000,000,000: This Is How Much Harvard Will Lose If Trump Okays Fund Cuts
New Delhi: Harvard University may lose up to $1 billion annually if US President Donald Trump goes ahead with his plans to cut research funding, tax policy and student enrollment, according to a new report in a leading American daily. An analysis of the worst-case scenario losses shows that America's oldest institution may have a budget deficit of over a billion dollars annually, should the impasse in the Harvard-Trump tussle prevail. According to The Wall Street Journal, a loss of $240 million in Endowment Fund, $700 million in research funding and $110 million in college, graduate school revenue puts the total number at over a million. Even though Harvard has a massive $53 billion endowment, which is still wealthier and more powerful than its peers, the university doesn't have much flexibility with that money. Much of the endowment is designed for specific purposes, such as some funds are allocated only for medical research, others for scholarships and some are locked in long-term investments. In addition to this, Harvard is a tax-exempt university. But with Trump's intention to take away the tax-exempt status and impose an 8 per cent tax on endowment, it could lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The US General Services Administration (GSA) on Tuesday asked all federal agencies to rethink their contracts with Harvard University and instead look for alternative businesses/companies for future endeavours. Harvard University has a higher percentage of international students, more than 7,000, who pay full tuition fees. With the Trump administration threatening to block the university from enrolling these students, it could reduce tuition fees. Since April, the US administration has taken away over $2 billion in research and education funding. With cuts to this, Harvard University might have to slash programs or departments, lay off professors or researchers, and reduce student scholarships. One of its major schools, the Kennedy School of Government, has started laying off employees and cutting down some of its departments or programs. The university has also started selling investments at a loss. They sold $1 billion worth of private equity investments at a 7 per cent discount. Katharine Meyer, an education policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that losing $100 million contract may seem small by itself, but if this keeps happening, the university won't be able to cover all the lost money from federal contracts, grants, and other income sources. She said, "This $100 million dollar contract pullback is certainly the smallest effort that we've seen, but I think the cumulative impact is hurtling toward a point where eventually Harvard does not have infinite funds to be able to fill in where they've lost federal contracts and grants and any other sources of their revenue." Over the last few months, the Trump administration has been at loggerheads with Harvard, particularly after anti-Israel protests over Benjamin Netanyahu's brutal war on Gaza and American support for what demonstrators called a genocide of Palestinians. The administration has also accused to varsity of giving safe space to people with antisemitic views. Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, told reporters that Harvard had broken US civil rights laws. She said that if any organisation breaks federal law, like these civil rights laws, they should not be given federal funding, such as grants for research or education. The Trump administration has also removed Harvard University from its electronic student immigration registry. This is used to track international students studying in the US, so if a university is removed, then international students can't legally study there. The US has asked embassies to reject student visa applications of those looking to study at Harvard.
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
When Bill Clinton praised India's cultural diversity
The mortal danger, of losing our democracy, was far from apparent in May 1994, when Prime Minister Narasimha Rao paid his first and only state visit to the United States of America. Although it came a bare seven years after Rajiv Gandhi's visit in 1987, it far surpassed the former in importance for it took place in a world transformed by the end of the Cold War and an India transformed by its new-found economic freedom. In the US, the Democrats had returned to power after being in the wilderness for twelve years. Victory in the Cold War had released US foreign policy from its straitjacket, and revived some of the expansive generosity it had shown towards Germany, and the developing countries, in the first decades after the end of the Second World War. The India that Narasimha Rao represented was also radically different from the one that had existed seven years earlier, for its economy was no longer hemmed in by import bans and sky-high tariffs. The integration of its large home market with that of the rest of the world was well under way, and was being watched avidly by American investors. At the White House press conference that followed Rao's one-on-one meeting with Bill Clinton on May 19, the President paid India a tribute that few of those who heard it have forgotten. He began his statement to the assembled media by listing the subjects he had discussed with Rao from a few slips of paper in his hands—clearly aides-memoire from his aides. Then, with the briefest of pauses, he added, 'Along with the US, India is one of the world's great experiments in multi-cultural democracy. His people have fought for more than four decades now to keep democracy alive under the most amazing challenges.' These remarks were not scripted for he did not look down at the notes that he had been consulting earlier even once. More than what he said, it was the tone in which he said it, and the slight emphasis he put on the word 'amazing', that revealed the depth of his admiration for India's achievement. Clinton's praise in 1994 was sincere. As a Rhodes scholar and student of philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University, he had perceived what few others had till then: that in sharp contrast to nation building in Europe and North America, India had succeeded in turning itself into a modern nation-state without taking recourse to war. After the end of the colonial era in the 1960s, 130 new countries had joined the United Nations. All but a few had started out as democracies. Only five had been able to sustain and stabilize it. India was by far the largest and most complex among them. So, as the leader of the world's richest and most powerful democracy, Clinton's praise for India's success was not therefore simply a diplomatic courtesy, but was born out of a genuine desire to understand how India had done it. What made the Indian experience unique was the starting point from which it had begun. The European nation-state had been born out of protracted conflict... most devastating of all, the Thirty Years' War in continental Europe from 1618 to 1648, which cost eight million lives through battle, disease and famine. The horrific destruction of that war led to the Treaty of Westphalia, which was Europe's first concerted effort to create the foundations of peace and proscribe war. This was easier said than done. In the three centuries that followed its signature, the nascent nation-states of Europe had to defend their borders from attack while simultaneously suppressing upsurges of sub-regional loyalties within them. By gradual degrees they learned to minimize external threats by creating well-marked and heavily defended 'hard' frontiers with their neighbours; the internal one, from sub-nationalism, was met by fostering the growth of a single, homogeneous cultural narrative. The rise of industrial capitalism reinforced both these tendencies by bringing a third element into this mix of motives: this was the competition to industrialize. This created the rationale for a further hardening of the boundaries between nation-states... . Thus, by degrees the nation-state became an instrument for the creation and preservation of economic autarchy. Economic autarchy further deepened cultural, political and economic divisions that nation building had already created between the people of neighbouring countries. The penultimate step in nation building was cultural homogenization. This was achieved by enforcing a common language and a single, sanitized version of history. In communities where this too did not work, nation-states played their last card. That was 'ethnic cleansing'.... By the early twentieth century, forced homogenization and ethnic cleansing had become the defining features of the European nation-state. Its bestiality reached its nadir in the Holocaust in which Hitler's Nazis starved, worked or gassed to death six million Jews shipped into Germany and Poland from all over Europe, and took human civilization to the lowest point in its 5,000-year history of unremitting violence.… In sharp contrast to European nation building, the Indian state is founded upon a ready acceptance of India's ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural diversity. India has more than 2,000 ethnic groups, and twenty-nine principal languages, of which thirteen are spoken by more than ten million people, and another sixteen that are spoken by more than a million. Twelve of the thirteen major languages belong to powerful ethno-linguistic groups that have lived in independent kingdoms for several centuries at a time over the past two millennia. Taken in its entirety, India has the most complex and at the same time most flexible system of devolution and power sharing that the world has ever known. The measure of its success is not that there has been no ethnic conflict in India, but that there has been so little, and that accommodation has been reached in all cases but one, with little violence. Excerpted with permission from Speaking Tiger Books. Also read: Samsung Galaxy Book5 Pro: A laptop for Android loyalists who secretly desire Apple's ecosystem play
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
California man ‘still supporting' Trump after wife detained by ICE
A family in California says they still support Donald Trump, even after immigration officers showed up at their door. Arpineh Masihi and her husband, Arthu Sahakyan, are longtime Trump supporters. They backed him in the last election, flew a Trump flag outside their house, and even gave their kids MAGA hats. California man is still supporting Donald Trump after ICE officers detained his wife(Pexels) But their public support for Trump did not stop ICE from detaining Masihi, who was taken from their Diamond Bar home as part of a federal roundup of Iranian nationals, according to Fox 11. Masihi, now in her 40s, came to the US from Iran as a refugee when she was just 3 years old. Her husband told the station that her green card was taken away about 15 years ago after a theft conviction. Since then, she has been trying to get her legal status back. Also Read: Elon Musk to be deported? Donald Trump responds amid feud 130 Iranians have been picked up by ICE She had been checking in with immigration officers for years, and nothing seemed wrong. But that changed after the US struck three nuclear sites in Iran on June 21. More than 130 Iranians were picked up soon after, including Masihi, federal sources told the outlet. Sahakyan further shared that he agrees with stronger vetting of Iranian nationals. 'I'm very for [the United States vetting] Iranian nationals because of the sleeper cells,' he said. 'I think it will resolve a lot of issues because we'll know exactly who's in here for what reasons, even though I miss [my wife] dearly.' He went on to say that he does not blame Trump for what happened to his wife. 'Trump is not trying to do anything bad. We understand what he's doing,' Sahakyan said. 'He wants the best for the country. I'm just trying to make the best of it.' On June 30, ICE officers came to the couple's home, which has a 'Keep America Great' flag out front. Sahakyan said Masihi gave him a hug and 'came and kissed the kids' before going with the agents. The family hasn't seen her since. Masihi spoke with Fox 11 by phone and sounded emotional as she talked about what could come next. 'I'm on the list to be going to a different facility,' she said. Arthu Sahakyan still standing by his political beliefs Even though it has been hard for his family, Sahakyan says he is still standing by his political beliefs. He wants his wife back, but he says he understands why this happened. He also says he's not taking down their pro-Trump signs. 'I'm still supporting [Trump],' he said. 'Even though my friends say, 'Take the flag down, you're going through a lot,' I'm like, 'No, the flag stands.' '
