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

Shouldn't this article include the allegations made by Netanyahu today?

I'm not an expert on this topic, and wouldn't know where to begin in terms of populating this article with the allegations, but I feel like it should be here as it is relevant to the article and has various reliable sources (ie. BBC News). -ThatJosh (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. For four main points:

1. On May 1st, 2018 the United Nation's nuclear watchdog IAEA stated that they found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran after 2009. Source at https://www.voanews.com/a/iaea-no-credible-indications-of-iran-nuclear-weapons-activity-after-2009/4372080.html Archived source at https://archive.fo/Tn7Jj
2. Netanyahu's made allegations and speculations. Not to confuse with independently verified evidence.
3. According to WikiLeaks, the White House made a suspicious typo in their recent statement related to this. Which involved Netanyahu/Israel. The White House retracted their statement. Source at https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/991142741257129987 Archived source at https://archive.fo/dUoeB
4. Netanyahu has a weak track record of being able to support his pasts claims with independently verified evidence. This is one of many related article at https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

Francewhoa (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Project Amad (the Iranian effort from the mid-90s to 2003) is clear part of the past Nuclear program of Iran. Whether Iran was in violation or not of the 2015 agreement by retaining documents and not disclosing in 2015 (per JCPA) the past activities is contested - but should be mentioned as it has received SIGCOV (it may be DUE to include criticism of said claim).Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support (kind of) - Regardless of how much of Netanyahu's presentation was actually new (not much) or current (none that I have seen), the fact that he made this presentation at a time when President Trump was considering the U.S. position on certification of the JCPOA is important. But by the same token any reference to this presentation should include notes of skepticism from experts about Netanyahu's credibility and motivations, as well as the fact that most of the information he presented was already well-known. NPguy (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

UN’s IAEA Statement May 1st, 2018

The United Nation watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made a recent statement on May 1st, 2018. Which might be of interest with the present events. How about adding this draft for the article introduction/lead? With sources.

On May 1st, 2018 the United Nation's nuclear watchdog IAEA stated that they found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran after 2009.

Template:Sources-talk Francewhoa (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we stop calling the IAEA the "UN nuclear watchdog"? It's a shorthand used by reporters that has no place in Wikipedia. Just call it the IAEA. The IAEA is not part of the UN and is not a "watchdog." NPguy (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that - IAEA without UN or watchdog. Furthermore - the IAEA didn't say anything new in 2018 - they reiterated their prior report from 2015 and concluded by saying Template:Tq - basically saying that if they received information, they do not discuss it until they issue a report - so the 1 May stmt actually added very little from their 2015 report other than saying they haven't released a newer report .[1]Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So maybe change the text to say that on 1 May 2018 the IAEA reiterated its 2015 conclusion. That change should also be made in Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction. NPguy (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Template:Reply to Thanks for your reply and contributions :) Sounds great. Done. How about this draft below?

On 1 May 2018 the United Nations' nuclear watchdog IAEA reiterated its 2015 report, saying it had found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran after 2009.

Francewhoa (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Template:Reply to Thanks for your reply and contributions :) About the suggestion to remove the "watchdog" word. I disagree. This term seems appropriate within the context of this article. I mean in this article context "watchdog" means government watchdog, focused on government public oversight, usually an organization, such as IAEA. Source of this meaning is Wikipedia, under "Public oversight" section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchdog

About the other suggestion to remove the word "United Nation"/"UN". I also disagree. I'm assuming that most readers often know what the UN is, it's pretty well known, notable, and reputable, but most readers seldom know what IAEA is. Adding UN facilitate the article reading and puts things into their context. According to both Wikipedia & IAEA, the IAEA does report to UN. Source at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care whether you agree. The IAEA is not part of the UN and it is not a "watchdog." Those characterizations are not accurate. NPguy (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article was mentioned in the press. Normally, that would be a compliment. Unfortunately, this recognition was not for content, but excessive length. At 270,000 characters, the article is not useful to a lay WP reader. To start, the lede is too long to give a compact and cogent overview.

Four hundred twenty-one references demonstrate that a lot of work went into creating this article. It would be a shame to lose it. Therefore chopping out some detail and relegating it to subsidiary articles makes sense. Most of these subsidiary articles already exist. A couple of new ones would cover the U.S. positions 2006- present and Iran positions.

What other ideas? Rhadow (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The article should be cut by 80% down to 50 kb. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried today to reduce much of the lede and summarize, but needs work. I will continue on this in my sandbox. I hope my contributions are useful. Chavmen (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Expelling Inspectors?

Template:Ping about your edit, there are more sources about this: [2] [3] [4]

I think this needs to be in the article. What do you think? Barca (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Ping Sorry for the delay in responding. I haven't been on for a few days.

The problem with the statement and the Reuters article is that they both get the facts wrong about Iran's nuclear law. The law calls for Iran to suspend implementation of the Additional Protocol, which provides additional transparency beyond Iran's safeguards agreement under the NPT. Iran is not threatening to block inspectors under its safeguards agreement. An Iranian legislator misstated the requirements of the law, but other Iranian officials later corrected him. The distinction is made in this article. NPguy (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

File:Yes check.svg 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)