Iranupdated 56m ago3 min read
Mansour Haghighatpour Says Iran’s Atomic Bomb Decision Must Come From Supreme National Security Council
4outlets comparedA wider view of the story
2 West Asian1 Israeli1 OtherThis article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Iran's atomic bomb decision must come from official decision-making bodies, not street or parliament. Officials could decide within one week to enable building the bomb; fatwas vary by time and place.
Save coverage image
4 outlets told this the same way.
Nuclear bomb debate
Mansour Haghighatpour said the decision to build an atomic bomb cannot be finalized “on the street or in Parliament,” and he argued that such a matter must be determined by “thinkers who today hold responsibility in the Supreme National Security Council or by the Supreme Leader.” Seyed Hossein Nagavi-Hosseini said that when “none of the decision-making institutions in the country about changing the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear strategy have spoken or approved anything in this regard,” raising the topic in “the Parliament’s podium” would “only cost us.” Mansour Haghighatpour said Iran’s scientific capability means “no field in nuclear science remains unconquered by our scientists,” but he warned that the issue must not lead to polarization within the country.
Mansour Haghighatpour added that “we can surely achieve what we have in mind within a week” if officials decide and announce it, and he said a fatwa depends on time and place. Mansour Haghighatpour said religious rulings “can be completed or changed according to the demands of time and place,” and he used the Qajar-era tobacco ban as an example of how rulings can shift with conditions.
US-Iran talks, nuclear gaps
“Some progress” had been made in efforts to reach an agreement between the US and Iran, while “significant gaps remain between the two sides.”
“There is some optimism that an agreement can be reached. But there is still work to be done,” and another source said no progress had been made on the nuclear issue while advances concerned other matters.
Tehran was demanding that Washington lift recent sanctions, reinstate oil waivers, reduce its regional military presence, and end port blockades before addressing restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.
US officials insisted that “any comprehensive agreement must address nuclear concerns from the outset,” and Iranian Deputy Parliament Speaker Ali Nikzad said Iran had no intention of negotiating over its nuclear program.
Dr. Raz Zimmt told The Jerusalem Post that “I find it difficult to see how this deadlock can be resolved,” while he said he would not rule out a temporary compromise given the risks of another round of military confrontation.
Escalation scenarios and bomb
Three scenarios about new US and Israeli attacks on Iran, analyzed by the Financial Times, ranged “from naval operations to attempts to change Iran’s government.”
Mark Esper said, “Only the President knows what is going through his mind,” and Joseph Votel described expanding naval attacks as “mowing the lawn” operations.
Trump said in an interview with Fox News, “I have to make a decision. Should I finish the job—which would be very easy to do—or reach an agreement?” and it said Trump was considering “one more small operation of the Epic Fury type.”
Iran was rebuilding its nuclear infrastructure at key sites including «Kuh-e Kalang» and «Talqan 2», and the text claimed US and Israeli leaders were examining new military actions including the “Mother of All Bombs.”
Trump warned he might attack Kuh-e Kalang because “any Iranian attempt to obtain nuclear weapons is intolerable,” and the text described Iran as refusing to capitulate while the US and Israel planned a new and limited round of military attacks.