Al -Jazeera Net Correspondents
Tehran- It was not a process.Rising lion“What she launched Israel on Iran Just a military strike, but rather described in Iranian political circles as an “existential threat” that shook the rules of the military doctrine based on the concept of “the second strike”, and raised deep questions about whether this threat requires the heart of the nuclear table and opened the door to a comprehensive review of the defense strategy.
While the effects of the shelling are still cloudy on some military facilities and residential neighborhoods that were housing scientists and officials linked to the nuclear program, an internal controversy erupted regarding the feasibility of continuing the traditional belief, between a stream calling for a decisive pre -emptive change, and another warning against “slipping into an unbearable adventure.”
The penetration of Israeli aircraft and American bombers revealed the atmosphere of Iran, targeting nuclear and security facilities, according to some military personnel, gaps in the Iranian doctrine that are based on receiving the first blow and responding to it later.
Military researcher Ali Abdi believes that this strategy weakened the ability of the Iranian forces to contain the threat, asking in an interview with Al -Jazeera Net about the feasibility of waiting until the strikes are received, while the Iranian army is losing sensitive leaders, elements and sites.
Abdi pointed out that “the Israeli aggression showed an urgent need for a bolder military approach,” noting indications of the start of this transformation, including revealing some strategic weapons during the recent attack, and appointing new leaders that give priority to the attack instead of defense.
Official statements were not without an escalation tone, as the Iranian Foreign Minister warned Abbas Araqji From that “his country will not hesitate to reveal its real capabilities if the threats continue,” at a time when my servant called for an unexpected behavior to deter the enemies, and to revitalize the allied factions in any upcoming confrontation.
Discuss nuclear deterrence
Coinciding with these developments, the statements of senior Iranian officials have re -raised the issue of nuclear weapons for discussion. In 2024, Kamal Kharazi, Chairman of the Strategic Council for Foreign Policy, warned of the possibility of changing the nuclear doctrine if the country was exposed to an existential threat, which was later confirmed by the adviser of the Supreme Leader Ali Larijani He pointed out that “any American mistake may push the Iranian people to demand the manufacture Nuclear bomb“.
This shift in the political mood resonated among the public, as an official poll conducted by the Iranian Radio and Television Research Center revealed 4 days after the Israeli attack, that 66% of the Iranians were supporting their country’s nuclear weapon.
The Association of Revolutionary Professors in the Scientific Hawza also called for “a review of the peaceful nuclear doctrine, and called on the leadership to” a firm and fast response “to what it described as” brutal aggression “.
Parliament’s position
In this context, the Iranian parliament voted last week on a bill to suspend cooperation with International Atomic Energy AgencyIn a move that political researcher Yasser Shamani described, in his interview with Al -Jazeera Net, as “an inevitable reaction to an existential threat that could no longer ignore it.”
However, Shamani warned of the danger of full withdrawal from the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, for fear of diplomatic consequences, calling for an effective diplomatic move to extract an official condemnation of the Israeli-American attack on his country’s nuclear facilities.
He stressed that part of the Iranian political class believes that the treaty did not protect the Iranian nuclear facilities, but perhaps a leakage tool for sensitive information about scientists and nuclear programs to hostile parties.
With regard to calls for the adoption of a “nuclear ambiguity policy”, Shamani considered that the explicit announcement of the possession of nuclear weapons, as other countries did, may be more effective in deterrence, especially in the absence of real international guarantees to protect Iran’s security.
Juristic and ideological controversy
On the other hand, conservative political activist Abdel -Ridha Dawouri believes that changing the Iranian military doctrine is not possible, given its association with the principles of Shiite jurisprudence, which does not allow “primary jihad in the absence of the infallible Imam.”
Speaking to Al -Jazeera Net, Dawouri mentioned the fatwa of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei By prohibiting the production or possession of weapons of mass destruction, and considered that the nuclear weapon no longer constitutes a real deterrent factor, noting that the Iranian missile response to Israel – which has a nuclear arsenal – has proven effective the traditional response.
Dawouri suggested that the Iranian official speech be reviewed towards the Palestinian issue, without recognizing Israel and continuing to support “liberal factions”, with a political understanding about a peaceful nuclear program that allows nuclear energy to be used for medical and industrial purposes, without exposing the country to the dangers of a comprehensive confrontation.
While the political elites in Tehran gathered to describe the recent attacks as an existential threat, positions vary on how to respond to it: Will it be by reviewing the nuclear doctrine, or by clinging to the ideological principles? Between this and that, observers are awaiting whether Tehran will remain adhering to the doctrine of the “second strike”, or is it standing on the threshold of a new era characterized by “nuclear clarity” and a proactive deterrence.