Talk:Nuclear program of Iran

Akbar Etemad - Father of Iran's nuclear program

This article should mention Akbar Etemad .

Iran's nuclear program began in 1959 with a small reactor given by the United States to Tehran University as part of the "Atoms for Peace" program announced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in December 1953. But that only whetted the Iranian monarch's appetite: With his increased oil revenues, and with his new vision of Iran as the hegemonic force in the region, a nuclear program became for Shah Pahlavi the symbol of progress and power. He summoned Akbar Etemad, a trained nuclear physicist, to the royal court in 1973, told him of his desire to launch a nuclear program, and asked Etemad to develop a master plan.

Two weeks later, the shah met with Etemad again. He quickly read the 13-page draft document Etemad had prepared, then turned to the prime minister and ordered him to fund what turned out be one of the most expensive projects undertaken by his regime. There was no prior discussion in the Majlis, where the constitutional power of the purse lay, or in any other governmental body or council. Like every major policy decision in those days, it was a one-man act. Thus was launched Iran's nuclear program.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams

The possibility of changing Iran's nuclear policy

The recent words of Haqtalab, Commander of the Nuclear Centers Protection and Security Corps (in Tabnak), which points to the possibility of changing Iran's nuclear policy, deserve to be added to the article. Where in the article is the right place to add this content? -- Iri1388 (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

First Violation in June 2025

The article doesn't seem to be coherent. In the lead, the article says that "In June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years." (emphasis added.)

However, there is a section called "US Withdrawal and Iranian violations (2018–2025)" which lists numerous times Iran was non-compliant with its obligations. Am I missing something, or is it simply incorrect that this was the first violation (in which case the line should be removed)? PotatoKugel (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi PotatoKugel. You are absolutely right! However, the source (https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-finds-iran-in-non-compliance-with-nuclear-obligations) mentions it twice: "Iran was found non-compliant with nuclear obligations by the IAEA board for the first time in 20 years, possibly setting the stage for renewed UN sanctions. The UN nuclear watchdog’s board of governors on Thursday formally found that Iran is not complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years." Right now I don't have the time to investigate this further - for instance, who was it that first said "20 years", but it really needs looking into. Lova Falk (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The IAEA Board of Governors is responsible for making findings of non-compliance with safeguards agreements. It has done so twice for Iran, first in September 2005 (based on information revealed in 2002-2005 about extensive undeclared nuclear activities) and second in June 2025 (based on Iran's failure to provide credible explanations for traces of nuclear material). NPguy (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking through the article, it seems that the IAEA found some more noncompliant actions:

1. "In July 2019, the IAEA confirmed that Iran has breached both the 300 kg enriched uranium stockpile limit and the 3.67% refinement limit."

2. "In September 2020, the IAEA reported that Iran had accumulated ten times as much enriched uranium as permitted by the JCPOA."

3. "In November 2024, Iran announced that it would make new advanced centrifuges after IAEA condemned Iranians' non-compliance and secrecy."

How does this fit with June 2025 being the first violation in 20 years? PotatoKugel (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am looking into this, and so far I have understood that it probably is the difference between IAEA inspectors flagging violations and an official resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors. But how to find sources that explain this difference clearly? If my understanding is correct, that is. Lova Falk (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@NPguy, @Danlaycock @BaderMS @Zurkhardo you have all edited on IAEA, can you help us out here? Lova Falk (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

My pleasure. I believe your assessment is correct:

UN nuclear watchdog says Iran in breach of obligations, Tehran announces counter-measures "The UN nuclear watchdog's board of governors on Thursday formally found that Iran was not complying with its nuclear obligations ... Nineteen countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board, which represents the agency’s member nations, voted for the resolution, according to diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the outcome of the closed-doors vote. The resolution comes on heels of the IAEA’s so-called “comprehensive report” that was circulated among member states last weekend. In the report, the UN nuclear watchdog said that Iran’s cooperation with the agency has “been less than satisfactory” when it comes to uranium traces discovered by agency inspectors at several locations in Iran."

See also IAEA board resolution declaring Iran in breach of non-proliferation duties | Reuters, which lays out the language of the IAEA Board's draft resolution, and IAEA board declares Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations | Reuters, which notes that the "...U.N. nuclear watchdog's 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations" following the "...May 31 IAEA report, a board-mandated "comprehensive" account of developments..."

Hope this helps! Zurkhardo (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

None of those actions is a violation of a safeguards agreement, which is a legally binding agreement between Iran and the IAEA. They are steps Iran took to stop implementation of the JCPOA as escalating responses to the U.S. withdrawal. The JCPOA itself is non-binding, though it has enforcement mechanisms (which Iran cites as the basis for its actions) and parts are implemented through UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which is binding. NPguy (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, ok. So I guess this new violation in June was a violation of UN SCR 2231 (or some other binding agreement)? Do I understand you correctly? PotatoKugel (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

No. The June resolution was a formal finding of noncompliance with Iran's safeguards agreement. NPguy (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! PotatoKugel (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Zurkhardo and NPguy, very helpful! Lova Falk (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

2-3 trillion cost of program is misleading.

The comment should be changed to stated that $2-3 trillion is the cost in lost economic opportunity due to sanctions and not the cost of the nuclear program. 71.183.88.220 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done not by me though. Lova Falk (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

One-sided lead

Lead is currently awfully one-sided and largely a regurgitation of anti-Iran propaganda. We should note for instance that Iranian religious leaders have produced religious edicts against the use of nukes. JDiala (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the lead was rewritten on June 12 by this edit. Hey, @Rafi Chazon:, can you confirm that you are doing hasbara? For now I have removed unsourced, contested claims. Feel free to re-add them with a reputable source! JordiGH (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion related to IHU in the nuclear program of Iran

There is an ongoing discussion at an ongoing discussion over at the List of airstrikes during the Iran–Israel war that directly relates to Imam Hossein University (IHU)'s involvement in the nuclear program of Iran. If you wish to participate in the discussion, you can here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Horribly biased article needs to ne reviewed

This page will see large amounts of traffic in the coming weeks, and thus needs to be reviewed. Calling Alireza Nader, someone who iw quite literally funded by the US government, simply a "scholar" as he states Iran is financing terorrism as "part of its strategy" leads readers to believe this is a consensus, when in reality it is an accusation. 2804:1B3:AF42:5B72:1DF:C9B3:4101:7A4C (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The article was extensively rewritten not long ago. I have not had time to review the edits, but it appears that some are problematic. NPguy (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Estimates suggest (but no sources)

Hi, can someone edit this page - estimates suggest that Iran could make a nuclear bomb in a week? I haven’t come across this claim from any reliable sources, most suggest that Iran has not attempted to build any nuclear weapons, including the US (experts only, not wild Trump claims) and the IAEA so conjecture like this should be framed as ‘opponents of Iran estimate that’ etc etc. or better still, just leave a time frame out entirely as it’s mostly just put there to justify war efforts. Thanks BedfordCF2 (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

IAEA says no proof of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

https://truthout.org/articles/iaea-head-we-did-not-have-any-proof-of-iran-building-nuclear-weapon/

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/talk-to-al-jazeera/2025/6/19/iaea-chief-no-evidence-iran-is-building-a-nuclear-weapon 2600:1011:A18A:8855:DC24:614E:F652:640C (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2025

Read More

Faarhadur Rahman (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Note that the added link would not be considered a reliable source since it is a blog entry. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)