Tehran must move forward with a nuclear test, Iranian MP says
Tehran must proceed with a nuclear test at the earliest opportunity, an Iranian lawmaker said on Saturday, amid reports in Tehran media of an intercontinental ballistic missile test.
Tehran must proceed with a nuclear test at the earliest opportunity, an Iranian lawmaker said on Saturday, amid reports in Tehran media of an intercontinental ballistic missile test.
“A nuclear test, along with its formal announcement, must not be delayed,” member of parliament Ahmad Naderi posted on X.
His comment comes alongside a video widely circulated on social media, which some believe shows an intercontinental ballistic missile test in Shahroud, northern Iran. Naderi, the only political figure speaking about the matter, refrained from confirming specifics, simply saying this development was “nothing unexpected.”
Iran has an array of medium-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, but extending their range could put European countries within striking distance.
Last month, an Israeli airstrike targeted multiple sites, including a key IRGC missile facility in Shahroud in north-central Iran, where satellite imagery from Planet Labs later showed significant damage to a ballistic missile and space rocket launch site.
Earlier this month, Kamal Kharrazi, former foreign minister and top foreign policy advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, warned that Iran might consider lifting its self-imposed 2,500-kilometer missile range limit in response to Israeli threats, signaling potential plans to test an intercontinental missile.
Kharrazi further indicated that Iran possesses the capability to produce nuclear weapons and suggested that, under existential threats, Tehran might reconsider the Supreme Leader’s ruling against weapons of mass destruction.
“If the Islamic Republic of Iran faces an existential threat, we may have no choice but to adjust our military doctrine,” Kharrazi said.
Iran has consistently held that it would not pursue nuclear weapons, citing a 2010 fatwa banning all forms of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. However, this decree is sometimes seen as advisory in nature and could be reinterpreted by Iranian decision-makers if the security landscape changes.
Israel launched airstrikes on military targets in Iran in response to a missile attack Iran had directed at Israel on October 1. The strikes damaged missile facilities and air defense systems, resulting in the deaths of four Iranian soldiers and one civilian.
Since then, Iranian officials’ rhetoric has fluctuated, at times suggesting an intent for a retaliatory response.
Then there are those, a significant number it seems, who are indifferent. They have lost hope of any change for the better.
“It makes no difference to me who’s in the White House, cause I see the problem here at home,” says Mahmoud, a well-educated pensioner who has “seen it all”.
“We are where we are, barely living, because of our rulers’ incompetence and bigotry. They don’t care if sanctions have broken our backs. They can end this if they want to. They could back down and reach an agreement with either Harris or Trump,” Mahmoud added.
US presidential elections are normally followed by many in Iran. But this time there was not so much appetite, perhaps because people are struggling more than ever, but also because many have come to believe that things go only downhill in Iran, whoever sits in the Oval Office.
The markets were less indifferent though. Iran’s currency dropped further as soon as Trump was declared winner, breaking its record low of the week prior.
“Trump will definitely impose more sanctions on Iran and back Israel in any attack against us,” says Hossein, 45, working in advertisement. “All we had has been wiped off by skyrocketing inflation, partly due to sanctions and partly due to corruption and incompetence at home. How much more we can take, how far lower we can go, I’m not sure.”
Recent official data suggests 30 percent of Iran’s population live below the poverty line. This is double the figure from two decades ago. The impact of sanctions is impossible to deny. But on the streets and at family gatherings, most appear to blame the Islamic Republic for it, not the United States.
Expletives are common when people talk about Iran’s foreign policy and support for armed groups across the region. The government announced last month that the military budget would be almost tripled in the upcoming Iranian calendar year. ‘Why spend so much elsewhere when so many are in need at home,’ is something you hear every day.
Hessam, a 29-year old photographer, is keen to see the back of this “wasteful policy” that he believes is at the heart of Iranians’ misery. “I hope Trump’s arrival ends the Islamic Republic’s game,” he says, “I don’t expect the regime to fall, and I fear war, but I think a Harris victory would have encouraged the regime to continue with its policies. Now they have to think twice.”
Some media reports suggest that president Masoud Pezeshkian was hoping for another Democratic administration. Hardliners have warned him against any talks with Trump, who has “blood on his hand”, that of IRGC top general, Qasem Soleimani.
The reactions to Trump’s win are not just political. Many of those who aspire to move to the US are disheartened. The memory of the 2017 travel ban is still fresh.
Samin, a computer science graduate, is one of many thousands who are at various stages of a long process to make a home in Europe or North America. “I was hoping to move to the US. I have submitted several applications and am waiting,” Samin says. “But with Trump’s return and the immigration policy that we all know well, I’m not so sure. I don’t know what future awaits me.”
It’s not clear if a Trump administration would make Samin’s move any harder. But that’s the general perception. So is the idea—rightly or wrongly—that the president-elect can play a significant role in determining the fate of the Islamic Republic one way or another.
