What is the Logic Behind Iran’s Relentless Pursuit of Nuclear Power?

The Trump administration asserted it: new sanctions are coming against Iran due to its pursuit of nuclear power. Israel has repeatedly stated that it cannot allow Iran to become nuclear.

Why is nuclear power so crucial for the Ayatollahs in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran?

The Mystery

Iran’s economy is in dire straits, the country’s currency is sinking (to buy 1 US$, you need 42’000 Iranian Rials!!). The people take to the streets, loudly demanding that money stay in the country rather than be spent on billions of dollars in support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza, Shiite militias in Iraq, and Assad’s Syrian army. They have been protesting Iran’s military entrenchment in Syria, both near and far from the Israeli border, its nuclear development, and its ballistic missile program.

The situation has become even more severe since the Trump administration imposed sanctions, but even before that, things were far from ideal. Yet Iran, a country of more than 90 million people, is rich in oil and gas resources. It ranks as the world’s fifth-largest producer of these two critical commodities. Unlike many Arab nations, Iran has a well-educated population, and its universities contribute to global scientific research. So why the nuclear energy push—allegedly for civilian purposes—when its underground reserves are vast? And why simultaneously develop ballistic missiles with a range of over 1,300 km, capable of carrying nuclear warheads?

Why persist in spending billions of dollars financing international terrorism and arming these various proxy militias against Israel when the Iranian people demand basic necessities, public services, and a decent standard of living? All this money could fuel the nation’s prosperity, yet instead, it funds death and destruction across the Middle East.

Isn’t it a fundamental responsibility of any government to prioritize the well-being and future of its own people? And yet, Western citizens and leaders alike find themselves asking: Why this irrational, unreasonable course of action? Are Iran’s rulers mad, delusional, irresponsible? Are they acting without logic?

Without logic? That’s what we’re about to explore. Their logic may not be Western, but it is internally consistent—if one takes the time to understand the ideological framework of Iran’s leadership.

The Key Difference Between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran

Since 1979, Iran has been governed by Shiite Ayatollahs. An Ayatollah is a man of faith—a theologian, a scholar of Shiite (not Sunni) Islamic law. This distinction is crucial, as we will see. An Ayatollah views the world exclusively through the lens of religion. This is the complete opposite of the secular West.

In the West, God has been declared dead and cast into oblivion. Framing political actions around religious faith or divine prophecy is entirely nonsensical, utterly unacceptable in the modern world. This stark contrast between the secular West and the religious East fascinated philosopher Michel Foucault, who traveled to Iran during the Islamic Revolution to witness this phenomenon firsthand. His writings for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera attempted to shed light on this dramatic cultural rift.

Messianic Times: Shiite vs. Sunni Beliefs

Shiite Islam represents about 15% of the global Muslim population and has suffered centuries of oppression at the hands of Sunnis, who consider Shiites heretics (kafir). The Ayatollahs have long-standing grievances against the Sunni world, dating back 1,400 years to the time immediately following the Prophet Muhammad’s death. It remains a source of deep pain for Shiites that Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, are under Sunni control.

The differences between the two sects run deep. Sunnis view the Quranic text as largely fixed, with little room for interpretation. Their governance seeks to restore Islam’s former glory—hence the strict religious rule seen in Saudi Arabia and the ambitions of groups like ISIS.

Shiites, by contrast, allow for more dynamic interpretations of religious texts, making their ideology more forward-looking. This difference resembles the historical division among ancient Jews between the literalist Sadducees and Samaritans, versus the Pharisees, who introduced flexible interpretations of the Torah (e.g., reinterpreting “an eye for an eye” from Exodus 21:24 as monetary compensation rather than physical revenge).

Another key difference lies in the importance placed on Hadith—oral traditions attributed to the Prophet. While Sunnis accept only four Hadith concerning the end times, Shiites embrace nearly a thousand. Messianic beliefs play a much larger role in Shiite Islam. A useful comparison is the Lubavitch movement in Judaism, known for its messianic obsession—mirroring the fervor of Iran’s Ayatollahs.

Before and after coming to power, Iran’s Supreme Leaders—Khomeini and Khamenei—have emphasized this messianic vision in their writings (e.g., Khomeini’s Velayat-e Faqih: The Governance of the Jurist, 1970) and speeches (e.g., Khamenei’s sermon on June 4, 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-87w3jBSH8). Khomeini’s doctrine had a major influence on the landscape of Shia Islam which had upheld political quietism for over a thousand years. A significant revision of tradition by Khomeini was on Mahdism, the messianic belief in the reappearance of their Twelfth Imam and the proper way to wait for Him. Traditional Twelver theologians urged believers to wait patiently for his return, but Khomeini and his followers called upon Shia Muslims to actively pave the way for Mahdi’s global Islamic rule. According to this ideology, the end times will be preceded by a period of extreme moral decay (which they believe is already occurring) before the arrival of the Mahdi, the hidden Imam—the equivalent of a messiah. This apocalyptic period will include a climactic battle between Jews and Muslims, described in a Hadith: “You will fight the Jews and defeat them so completely that even the stones will cry out, ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me! Come and kill him!’”

Nuclear weapons—the ultimate instruments of mass destruction—fit neatly into this apocalyptic vision (https://www.mei.edu/publications/irans-revolutionary-guard-and-rising-cult-mahdism-missiles-and-militias-apocalypse). Iran’s generals openly declare that Israel is a small country—one atomic bomb would be enough to wipe it off the map.

Nuclear Development: Religious Strategy Disguised as Civilian Energy

Iran, the world’s fifth-largest oil producer and third-largest gas producer, claims its nuclear program is for civilian use. Simultaneously, it pours vast sums into developing ballistic missiles with nuclear capabilities—and a range of precisely 1,300 km, the exact distance from Iran to Israel. Not 1,000 km, not 1,200 km—1,300 km.

Until these missiles reach full operational range, Iran seeks to physically position itself closer to Israel. This explains its determination to keep a deep military entrenchment in Syria and its presence in Iraq near the Syrian border. A glance at the map shows that Iran’s network of proxy militias aims to encircle Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Iranian leaders constantly reiterate their goal of erasing Israel from the map—an ambition reinforced by their messianic beliefs.

But why also target Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islam’s holy sites? The answer is simple: Sunni oppression of Shiites over the centuries. Iran’s leaders view this as their moment for retribution—to humiliate and subjugate the Sunni world and reclaim Mecca and Medina before comes the Mahdi.

Meanwhile, the secular West is preoccupied with prosperity, individual freedom, and human rights. It cannot fathom the idea of hastening the arrival of a messianic era as a legitimate political objective. It seems inconceivable that a state would dedicate immense financial and military resources to such a cause, at the expense of its own people’s welfare.

This logic may not be Western, but it is internally consistent within Iran’s ruling ideology. And here lies the true clash of civilizations—a fundamental inability to understand “the Other” due to vastly different worldviews. The Ayatollahs’ military investments stem directly from their religious convictions.

For them, infused with divine purpose, there is no alternative. It is ingrained in their very nature (much like in Aesop’s fable of The Scorpion and the Frog). What does the suffering of ordinary people matter when one is striving to shape history in service of Allah?

For those who doubt this, consider the hundreds of thousands of Iranian child soldiers, aged 13–14, sent to their deaths during the Iran-Iraq war, armed with little more than a symbolic “key to paradise” around their necks.

Western leaders may view Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a mystery, but those who listen carefully to what the Ayatollahs actually say—without wishful thinking—will recognize the stark reality. However, facing this truth requires acknowledging the full extent of the threat. The West, bloated and weary like an old Roman senator accustomed to the luxury of his accumulated wealth, is unfortunately quite incapable of this.