A Nuclear Message From Iran
The Nuclear Taboo
Since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the accepted view in the West has been that another use of nuclear weapons in war is taboo. Formal military doctrines do not necessarily recognize this taboo; Soviet doctrine during the cold war contemplated the first use of nuclear weapons in Europe to ensure victory in an attack on NATO, while American doctrine contemplated first use in order to ensure such an attack failed. Nonetheless in practice the strength of the taboo is very great. Leaders on both sides dreaded the prospect of nuclear war. They would have gone to great lengths, including perhaps conceding a battle, in order to avoid it; and of course they never actually started such a battle.
Since the end of the cold war authoritarian powers weaker than the West have changed their view of nuclear weapons. Putin now speaks rather loosely of using tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict with NATO. This kind of talk is not taken very seriously in the West, since the first rule of nuclear warfare where both sides possess nuclear weapons, is that of Hillel: What you don’t want to happen to you, don’t do to others.
The (Updated) Iranian View of Nuclear Weapons Use
Recently a prominent Iranian public figure, Mohamed-Javad Larijani, discussed in public his view of the first use of nuclear weapons in war. Larijani is a member of the extremely prominent and powerful Larijani family; he was an adviser to Ali Khamenei, killed last March, his brother Sadegh was former Chief Justice of Iran, and his brother Ali was also killed in March while serving as Secretary of Iran’s National Security Council. Mohamed-Javad was Director of the Tehran Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics. He has a degree in electrical engineering and studied in the PhD program in mathematics at Stanford, though he didn’t complete his degree.
Larijani expounded his view in an interview that is reported on in the Telegram channel “Abu Ali Express,” despite its name an Israeli channel which is considered fairly reliable and monitors Arab and Iranian media, providing summaries and translations in Hebrew. The editor prefers to remain anonymous, so although some sources claim to have identified him we will respect his desire here.
The editor provides the following translations of excerpts from the interview:
“Military use of nuclear technology doesn’t necessarily require the production of a bomb intended to be dropped on people and cause the mass death of civilians. One can speak of tactical uses and the attack of military centers and military bases . . . We can attack any military base used to launch attacks against our country, but attacks on civilians or infrastructure necessary for civilians’ lives is something else which is not consistent with our principles.”
“If an attack on Iran is launched from American bases in Germany, Albania or Britain, such bases are legitimate targets in our view.”
Let me note that this is my translation from “Abu Ali Express’” Hebrew translation. Farsi language experts should verify that my representation of what Larijani said is faithful to the essence of the original. Nonetheless we will proceed here assuming that that is the case.
Larijani has clarified that Iran now considers it legitimate to initiate the use of nuclear weapons against military targets, to prevent attacks on Iran.
Larijani’s words are meant as a threat. In particular he aims to drive a further wedge between the United States and the European members of NATO. The latter are not likely to welcome nuclear weapons of any size going off on their territory, American bases or not. The seriousness of the threat is mitigated by the reflection that if Iran uses nuclear weapons against American bases, in Europe, the Persian Gulf, or anywhere else, the United States will knock what remains of the Iranian people back into the Stone Age.
Note that Larijani’s care to distinguish between military and civilian targets apparently does not apply to random attacks with conventionally armed missiles on civilian population centers in Israel. One has to wonder whether in the event nuclear attacks are likely to be at all different.
Pickaxe Mountain
Pickaxe Mountain is hill of granite 1.5 kilometers south of the Natanz Nuclear Complex in Iran. There are some small towns in the vicinity but they are 15-20 kilometers away. Natanz was damaged by United States bombers in 2025 and 2026 and Iran’s inventory of enriched U-235 is believed buried there. Iran has acknowledged Pickaxe Mountain as a site for the storage and production of enriched uranium. Excavating the site requires the ability to drive a tunnel through tough granite, and it is possible that Iran is building tunnels from Natanz to the Pickaxe site, which would permit evacuating whatever survived in Natanz to Pickaxe without exposing it to attack on the surface. The granite cover over the Pickaxe facility is at least 100 meters, some sources say much more. 100 or more meters of granite is a pretty hardy shield. No conventional munition of which there is public record can break through a shield like that.
I think we have to be grateful to Mohamed-Javad Larijani for making clear that, in Iran’s view, it is legitimate to use tactical nuclear weapons against military targets which threaten one’s homeland, as long as they are not deliberately aimed at civilian targets and the civilians have an opportunity to avoid or escape the effects.
Noted.
Dr Yitzhak Klein has a PhD in International Security. His doctoral dissertation was entitled “Soviet Strategic Culture, 1917-1965.”