Header Image


Op-Ed Column

Will Iran Use Nukes?

by David Yeagley · February 23, 2012 · 27 Comments ·

Will Iran actually use nuclear bombs when and if it can? It is no small achievement for Iran to be able to even talk about nuclear energy, let alone threaten the world with missiles and nuclear warheads. But, do we have reason to believe that Iran would in fact use such weapons against another nation?

Iranian leaders have certainly made it clear that they at least want everyone to think they will use them. They obviously want the political influence that comes with the possession of nuclear weapons. The mullahs and their representative Ahmedinejad have repeatedly dramatized threats toward Israel, Europe, and the United States.

Ayatollah Khameini and Ahmedinejad.

Iran has certainly not hesitated to supply every other kind of weapon to dependent regimes and organizations who themselves would probably use nuclear weapons—of any kind, since they have freely used all other weapons against Israel and the United States.

But, ironically, Iran has no natural enemies. No country is at war with Iran, or even plotting to be. There is no cause for Iran’s aggressions. No one is attacking Iran, but some countries are vitally concerned about protecting themselves against Iranian aggression. It is as if Iran is tempting anyone and everyone it can to make a move against Iran, and then Iran will act—however ineffective such action might be. Iran has already threatened “preemptive” action against any country it thinks might attack it. This is truly a self-spiraling, semi-autolytic political trap, created by a country that actually has relatively limited military sources.

It’s all about boasting. But, boasting with a historical base. Iranians are the heirs of the Persian emperors. Imperialism is in their genetic coding. The mullahs see Islam as their most effective tool in achieving hegemony in the Middle East. In their compulsive ambition, however, they fail to consider that Islam is an Arabic religion, and the Arab world will never “submit” to Iranian leadership. Iran’s most international intents can only be expressed by its hired subordinates in scattered global points, or in attempts to make allies out of Arab countries, like Syria or Lebanon, by supplying their governments and radicals with weapons.

Iran wants to play hardball, and the need for nuclear weapons is paramount. A country is not a world player in the big leagues without the bomb.

Iranian-Americans often have interesting evaluations of their homeland government. One friend of mine, Kuresh, said, “Iran will never use nuclear bombs. No one ever has—except the United States, 70 years ago. Look at Pakistan. Look at India. Are they strong, stable governments? Yet, they have the bomb. Why can’t Iran have the bomb?”

Kuresh makes a good point. He confirms the suspicion that boasting is all for anti. It is for political influence, for international ambition, that Iran seeks nuclear weapons—never to use them.

The next question has to be, then, why threaten the world with them before you even have them? Why make the world believe you’re going to use them, if you’re not? If Iran really wants the bomb, why announce to the world an intent to use them—specifically speaking to Israel, Europe, and the United States—the very countries that can stop you? This is all self-defeating.

The situation is enigmatic. Iran’s words and behavior are self-contradictory. Do Iranian leaders feel the West is so naïve and ignorant as not to see this? (Considering the conflicting opinions in the West about what course to pursue toward Iran, maybe the Iranian leaders are smarter than everyone thinks.)

Israel certainly is obliged to take Iran at its word. If Iran says it intends to eradicate the state of Israel from existence, and engages in world-wide terrorism in the mean time; and if Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, then Israel simply has to take Iran completely seriously. Israel cannot afford to be absorbed in political, psychological second-guessing Iran.

If a person is assembling a gun, and tells you and all your neighbors that he’s going to use it on you, and in the meantime he supports anyone who is throwing firecrackers and Molotov cocktails at your house, you’d better believe he’s going to use his rifle on you as soon as it’s ready.

Personally, I cannot believe Iran would be so foolish. A maniacal abuse of religion, a fanaticism focused against Israel, may compel words of great boasting and death threats, but I believe the mullahs enjoy their wealth to much to blow it way.

UPDATE: More recent conversations with other beloved Iranian friends reveal other opinions. “Iran will use the bomb,” I was told, and “they will use it against Israel.” “David, you do not understand how crazy the mullahs really are. They are crazy, ignorant, and stupid. They are not qualified to lead a country. They are crazy. They don’t know what they are doing.”

Posted by David Yeagley · February 23, 2012 · 1:01 pm CT · ·

Tags: Asian · Iranians · Islam · Israel · Op-Ed Columns · Persia · Politics · Religion

Read More Op-Ed Columns »

27 responses so far ↓

  • 1 David Yeagley // Feb 23, 2012 at 2:50 pm   

    Iranian Scientist ‘Sought Israel’s Annihilation,’ Says Widow
    2/22/2012, 7:48 PM

    The wife of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated in Tehran in January, said Tuesday that her husband “sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly,” according to Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.

    “Mostafa’s ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel,” the agency quoted Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani as saying Tuesday.

  • 2 Prayer Warrior // Feb 23, 2012 at 10:10 pm   

    I do not see Iran as playing a bluffing game with the rest of the world over their nuclear ambitions.
    I believe Ahmadinejad is dead serious about annihilating both Israel and the United States of America. I further think he sees himself, if not a zealous prophet of Shi’a Islamic eschatology, than a man on a mission and that is to destroy a third of the world’s population in order to usher in the era of the Mahdi, also known as the 12th Imam.
    Historians today now claim that if the world had really stopped and listened to the rantings of another dictator over seventy years ago, that man, Adolf Hitler, might have been stopped a lot sooner and perhaps millions of lives would have been saved from his diabolical ambitions for worldwide domination. It seems to me that it is very true that history, particularly bad history, always repeats itself. We are seeing bad history in the making once again.
    In a few weeks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be coming here to address AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington DC. He is also expected to be received, albeit reluctantly, by President Obama at the White House. I personally belief that the fate of America as a nation hinges on a positive outcome from this meeting. The most important question is, Will Obama stand with Israel? Will he support their right to defend themselves against an impending missile attack from Iran? Or, will he continue to stand arrogant and defiant in the face of Almighty God, like the arrogant and defiant Pharaoh of ancient Egypt?
    God does not sport a tattoo of an American flag on His arm. America will not be exempt from His judgment concerning our government’s treatment of the nation of Israel.
    I pray that our leader receives Godly wisdom and makes the right choice.

  • 3 Maharishi of Mayhem // Feb 24, 2012 at 9:12 am   

    Dr. Y,

    My gut is that any radical Muslim would use a nuke (or any other WMD) to inflict as much harm and fear as possible.

    However, I have heard some things about a so-called Muslim messiah called the 12th Imam that is supposed to come, but not before massive bloodshed.

    Can you shed any light on this concept of a Muslim messiah and how that might relate to their destructive tone? In other words, will their decision as to whether or not to pull the nuclear trigger be based more on politics or theology?

  • 4 David Yeagley // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:09 am   

    Leslie H. Gelb: The Iran-Washington Conspiracy?
    DailyBeast, 2-24-12

    Tehran and Washington have discovered a surprising common bond: to pretend that they might be heading toward serious negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear capacity. What’s more, they are pretending for the same reason: to ward off an Israeli attack on Iran.

  • 5 David Yeagley // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:12 am   

    MM, as I understand it, the 12th Imam comes at the point of world self-innihilation. Chaos, then, is the preferred condition. The devoted Muslims believe it their duty to create war and chaos, so the Imam may come. The Imam, of course, isn’t Christ, but turns out to be Mohammad. This is the street talk, anyway. Perhaps Zephyr, our resident expert on Islam, can enlighten us.

  • 6 REG // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:13 am   

    Good article, I believe you covered the situation very well. The major problem in this whole Iran/Israel/USA thing is caused by the national news media and assisted by pro-Israel Christians who think that supporting Israel means protecting Israel. This is causing a war, not preventing it.
    The US has approximately 11,000 nuclear missiles, Israel has over 400 nuclear missiles. At best, if Iran ever was able to build a nuclear missile, they would be able to create at most two. Israel has one of the best missile defense systems in the world, Iran has a reasonable defense system. Both countries are far enough away from each other that they have early warning systems. Therefore it would be foolish for Iran to do anything but defend itself and they know it, but, you don’t back off a bully by being submissive.
    My news sources, courtesy of Ilana Mercer, who has family in Israel, and other news than the US media, state that Israel is not concerned with Iran as a threat. However, a comment made by an Iranian or a Israeli will be twisted by the Associated Press or Reuters into a threat or fearful statement by the US Press. Our news media has learned after they caused us to go to war with Spain for no reason, that they can manipulate us. The same tactics have been used ever since and we gullible suckers fall for it every time. Like I said before, we should be looking at Saudis, they are the ones with the most to gain from all this.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:23 am   

    Peres: ‘When we say all the options are on the table, we mean it’

    President Shimon Peres joined the chorus of senior Israeli leaders commenting on the issue of a nuclear Iran for the first time on Thursday, taking an unequivocal stand on Israel’s right to defend itself against “the epicenter of moral corruption and global terrorism.”

  • 8 David Yeagley // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:24 am   

    Reg, My brain is fried on this. I can’t figure it out. Everything anyone says seems to be true! I’m just wondering how useful logic actually is.

  • 9 REG // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:43 am   

    Dr. Yeagley- You and me both. I would like to see a world with clear “Right and wrong” Black and white, good and evil. However it isn’t always so easy. To back my comments up, please check out

    Russian Tv, has a very good article about how the US news is manipulating things. In the Bible God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the “Knowledge of good and evil” Today’s tree of knowledge is the national news media. Just as Adam and Eve blew it because they tasted bad fruit, so can we. In this case a lot of innocent lives, Iranian, Israeli or US if we are stupid enough to go into war blindly. I’m only proposing that we be very careful and not buy something that is thrown at us by people with their own agenda.

  • 10 David Yeagley // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:50 am   

    Bush got everyone to agree on the trek into Iraq. Somehow, I don’t see Obama ever having the fortitude to do anything. He may be pressured into something by circumstances..

    But, I can’t see him consulting the people’s opinion on anything.

  • 11 whitetrash // Feb 24, 2012 at 11:01 am   

    Along with creating conditions that led to the election of Obama, Little Boy Bush also ignored repeated declarations by the Israelis that the threat to the U.S. in the Middle East was Iran, not Iraq. The problem then and now were the strategic and tactical challenges of submitting Iran as opposed to the already diminished Iraq.

    Bottom line: It was easier for Bush and his employers to extract profits from submitting Iraq rather than the real threat to the United States. Furthermore, once they had submitted Iraq’s army, they were so incompetent in dealing with the insurgency that any strategic advantage of having troops on the ground was never leveraged against Iran, and was ultimately abandoned by Obama.

  • 12 Prayer Warrior // Feb 24, 2012 at 12:22 pm   

    The 12th Imam

    What Christians Need To Know

  • 13 David Yeagley // Feb 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm   

    CNN (Amanpour?) did a documentary on Ahmedinajad earlier on, when he became president. It was all about the religion, his visions, etc. They do have their “inspirations.” This was all laid out very clearly in that early documentary.

  • 14 Prayer Warrior // Feb 24, 2012 at 6:16 pm   

    It’s surprising that someone like Christiane Amanpour, whose father was Iranian, has not used her status as a television media celebrity to expose and condemn the horrible human rights abuses of the Ahmadinejad regime against the Iranian people, and especially the abuse of women there. I continually ask myself why western womens’ groups remain remotely silent on the dehumanizing and barbaric treatment of Iranian women, and women in general, under Islam.

  • 15 Thrasymachus // Feb 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm   

    “Personally, I cannot believe Iran would be so foolish. A maniacal abuse of religion, a fanaticism focused against Israel, may compel words of great boasting and death threats, but I believe the mullahs enjoy their wealth to much to blow it way.”

    I agree. I don’t think that Iran will use nuclear weapons; I find it highly unlikely. It’s just too dangerous and self-destructive for that nation. However, I am not a prophet, and we live in a world in which, as Benjamin Franklin said, only death and taxes are certain.

  • 16 David Yeagley // Feb 25, 2012 at 9:06 pm   

    In Israel’s position, I don’t think they want to risk it. Can’t blame them for that.

  • 17 Thrasymachus // Feb 25, 2012 at 9:46 pm   

    Some people have stated that it would be really risky for Israel to make war on Iran. It is quite possible that Russia and China would attack Israel if she waged all-out war on that nation.

    The Mid-East situation right now is more volatile and fraught with danger than it has ever been. For any Mid-East nation to attack another in a major way — inflicting serious damage and causing myriads of civilian casualties — such action could bring on a world war. And, in my opinion, for the U.S. to take action again, as in Iraq, would be no less dangerous for all involved.

    From a biblical point of view, I cannot imagine the Almighty allowing any nation or nations to destroy the Mid-East using modern nuclear weapons. If that region is made uninhabitable, how then could prophecy be fulfilled?

    Personally, I think that the U.S. government lied to the American people about Iraq. The purpose of that war was to humiliate Saddam Hussein and “get even” with him. Also, war does generate profits in certain areas of the economy.

    Again, I’m no prophet! I could easily be wrong. Having made that point clear, here is my opinion:

    An Iran with nuclear weapons is not as frightful a position for Israel (though it might be a danger to Europe or the U.S.) as one might guess. Just as the U.S. and the Soviet Union both had these weapons and were afraid to use them against each other, how much more disastrous would it be between two small nations in proximity to each other in the same region.

    There’s no way Iran can destroy Israel without being destroyed itself in the process. I don’t think Iran plans on committing national suicide.

  • 18 David Yeagley // Feb 25, 2012 at 11:06 pm   

    We’ll have to see if all Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were hidden in Syria, as some said. Right now, the US is claiming that we’re very concerned about Syria’s WMD’s!!! Before, they (and the media) claimed that that was all a lie! Remember?

  • 19 Asaph // Feb 26, 2012 at 6:20 am   

    There are some views of prophecy, particularly “Historicism” views (and Preterism), rather than “Futurism” views, which do not place much or any focus on the Middle East. The whole region could go up in a cloud of smoke and not effect last day events at all.

    On Iran using nukes. Insane people do insane things. Radical minds do radical things. Dangerous minds do dangerous things. Nothing would surprise me.

  • 20 REG // Feb 26, 2012 at 9:47 am   

    The major problem in all of this is information. RT has an article- where the CIA states that Iran dropped their nuclear weapons program in 2007. They are working on nuclear medicine, 20% vs the 90% required for weapons. They have achieved it and if left uninterrupted can proceed with using nuclear medicine to help their people. Mossad has also said that there is nothing to fear from Iran. But if our war mongers in the government and people using Bible prophesy doctrine developed in 1870 by the Baptist church to justify their ‘end times call to evangelism’ outreach. The concept that they had to evangelize the whole world before Christ returned, so the end of the world could issue in the new earth and Israel fought the last battle.

  • 21 David Yeagley // Feb 26, 2012 at 9:53 am   

    REG, that all might be true. But, the question is still, Why do the mullahs want everyone to at least THINK that they’re developing nuclear weapons?

    My Iranian friends tell me that this ignorant, unqualified national leaders can only stay in power by creating crises. One crisis after another. This enables them to exercise power. They create the crises, if but by words.

    Sound like you think the evangelicals are about as bad as the mullahs! Interesting, indeed.

  • 22 zephyr // Feb 26, 2012 at 10:37 am   

    Maharishi–I think there was a blog on Islamic eschatology awhile back here.

    The most revealing passage that could be related to the 12th imam is surah 43:

    “And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the Hour, but follow ye Me [Allah]: this is a Straight Way. . . . My devotees [“slaves” in Arabic?]! no fear shall be on you that Day, nor shall ye grieve,–(Being) those who have believed in Our Signs and bowed (their wills to Ours) in Islam. Enter ye the Garden, ye and your wives, in (beauty and) rejoicing.”

    43.61, 68-70 Late Mecca

    The Qur’an doesn’t give specific details on a 12th Imam, but it does link the coming of Jesus with the destruction of any remaining dhimmis. A false Christ would light the fuse for total annihilation.

    Most of the info for the 12th Imam idea comes from other Islamic sources like the hadith and sunna. And because the Iranians are primarily Shi’a, their eschatology differs from the Sunni version.

    Sunni hadith are centered around the Sadi Sitteh, or Sacred Six–the close followers of Muhammad. Shi’a hadith are centered around 4 different individuals, based on that original bloodline rift betw the two groups.

    So their sources vary. Joel C. Rosenberg has written a book titled “The Twelfth Imam”–I’ve not read it but it might be useful in trying to sort out these different theories on the Islamic caliphate. I think Glenn Beck also did a program focused on that but can’t recall the title.

  • 23 REG // Feb 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm   

    “My Iranian friends tell me that this ignorant, unqualified national leaders can only stay in power by creating crises.” Have you looked at our leaders lately. The Treasury Secretary is quoted as saying, ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’ We are awash in crisis and they keep growing. One valley in California lost its irrigation because of a threatened minnow. We’re as bad as the religious people in Iran. Fear rules the world today. In regard to
    “Sound like you think the evangelicals are about as bad as the mullahs! ” Nope, I don’t know any Mullahs. The news puts out a short paragraph from one of many Mullahs occasional, but I don’t know if what was reported is true or even in context. Very few evangelicals either; but some of the churches I went to including the Baptist church were into prophecy. I studied the whole Bible and found that they were cherry picking. Then I read the history of the Evangelicals, I learned enough about them not to take them for the truth. I also learned that the Muslims are not that blood thirsty people that the preachers said they were. I don’t like the Muslim religion, to me, God is so much better than that. In other words, I want to be careful to make a sound decision when it is time to do so. I thought that was your opinion in the article as well.

  • 24 zephyr // Feb 26, 2012 at 5:12 pm   

    REG, to be sure, many Muslims would not blow themselves up or plant bombs. Many truly want everyone to convert to Islam because they don’t want to see non-Muslims killed.

    But even these peaceful ppl DO support the Qur’an. So they will never resist the establishment of the global caliphate. They believe it must and will come.

    Remember, too, that peaceful Muslims know they are obligated to lie in many situations, but particularly when dealing with kuffar. The refs for that are in the blog I cited in my previous comment.

    Whatever you do, don’t fall for the egregious heresy that Christians and Muslims are worshipping the same god. That is what Muslims believe bec the Q says so. That isn’t, however, what the Bible teaches. Can’t have it both ways.

  • 25 REG // Feb 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm   

    zephyr : You missed the part where I said “I don’t like the Muslim religion, to me, God is so much better than that.”

    You don’t have to love someone just because you don’t think they are bloodthirsty. Granted that the present killings because of a few Korans being burned can cast doubt on that thought. I don’t know any Muslims, nor do I want to. I just don’t want to go to Iran, kill a bunch of Iranians just because a government agent or preacher calls them names. As I mentioned in the first comment. The original sin is ‘judging falsely’ Hopefully, this clears up the matter.

  • 26 AvengingAngel // Dec 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm   

    Haaaaaaaaa. Rez dog Yeagley seems to have a problem with Blacks. But see, Blacks are strong. They came as slaves to America and have produced great people. Meanwhile the LAZY NATIVE REZ DOGS just keep on whining. Use your energy to save your pathetic race and leave Blacks alone. Weird-looking donkey.

  • 27 Exu // Dec 26, 2012 at 12:52 am   

    It seems that many Iranian people – especially the younger ones of that nation – are rejecting Islam en toto and embracing the ancient Persian belief system of Zoroastrianism. Unless the “fix” is in and the Oligarchy of the Corporate/Banking world want to devistate Iran for the sake of more fun and profit, does it make sense to act toward their population with sanctions etc.? Wouldn’t it be more geo-politically sound to help erode the Muslim leadership structure from within? This has been done before in many instances with many nations. Why not with Iran?

You must log in to post a comment.