Remix.run Logo
maratc 4 hours ago

They had a religious ruling on the range, and they also had a religious ruling on "not creating an atomic bomb."

The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas is still standing, as these rulings can apparently be changed or bypassed.

tptacek 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This "religious ruling" stuff is less interesting than it sounds. To begin with, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian state, the Twelver Shia hierarchy isn't unified. The supposed ban on nuclear weapons was Khamenei's, and binding only on his followers. But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?), with significant followings even in the security state & IRGC (al-Sistani being a good example).

More importantly, it's pretty clear that the geopolitical rulings are, well, geopolitical in nature. Iran is a nuclear threshold state; its strategy is to come as close to the breakout line as it can and extract concessions for not crossing it. The supposed nuclear fatwa is just public relations strategy. At the point Iran decided the cost/benefit/risk/reward of crossing the threshold made sense, it would be updated.

ttul 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with you, mostly. My read is that Twelver Shi’ism is not a unified hierarchy, and a marja’s fatwa normally binds that marja’s own followers rather than all Shi’a, so your institutional point is broadly right.[1][2] It is too strong, though, to say the anti-nuclear position was simply “invented for PR”: Khamenei did publicly describe it as a real fatwa.[3] At the same time, Iran’s enrichment posture _does_ fit the description of a threshold state, with large stocks of uranium enriched to 60%, so it is fair to say the ruling also had strategic and diplomatic value.[4]

The parts I would soften are the specific claim about Sistani having a significant following inside the IRGC, which MIGHT be true but is much harder to substantiate publicly (although, maybe you have some behind-the-scenes knowledge?), and the certainty of motive. Still, your last sentence is basically right: these rulings are not _immutable_. After Ali Khamenei’s death, Iran’s foreign minister said (quoting the Reuters article), “fatwas depend on the Islamic jurist issuing them,” and added he was “not yet in a position to judge the jurisprudential or political views of Mojtaba Khamenei…” This reinforces the point that doctrine can shift if the leadership chooses.[5]

[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Twelver Shi’ah.”

[2] Al-Islam.org, “Question 49: Difference between hukm and fatwa.” [3] Leader.ir, “Ayatollah Khamenei in the Eid al-Fitr congregational prayers” and “Leader’s remarks on anti-Iran sanctions and Yemen aggressions by Saudi Arabia.”

[4] Arms Control Association, “The Status of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” and ACA analysis citing the IAEA’s 440.9 kg figure.

[5] Reuters, “Iran says nuclear doctrine unlikely to change, Hormuz Strait needs new protocol” (March 18, 2026).

rayiner 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your in-depth knowledge of completely random things never ceases to amaze me.

tptacek 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm Catholic and Twelver Shiism is the closest thing Islam has to Catholicism. It's a really neat system.

chimineycricket 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maraaji' is the pluralized version in Arabic, but nothing wrong with saying marjas. Marji would be most wrong though.

thaumasiotes 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?)

Wikipedia has romanized: [singular] marji'; plural marāji'.

cardanome 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings.

Can anyone blame them for considering developing nuclear weapons for real now? I can't.

tonyedgecombe 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.

FpUser 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are lots of countries doing just the same but the West does not give a flying fuck about it. Most of the human rights violations they care about somehow related to countries that happened to have oil.

And if you tell me that US /Israel are bombing Iran to protect rights of oppressed then I have that wonderful bridge.

watwut 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But that has nothing to do with this war. Like, nothing at all. Israel doing genocode in gaza and what seems like ethnical cleansing of lebanon does not have anyyhing with that either. USA threatening Greenland is also not a factor in this war.

Donald Trump does not care about protesters in Iran. His idea of regime change is "keep the regime and change head for someone who will pay me personally".

And Hegseth does not care either. He is proving his manhood.

And Israel have completely different goals, so.

It is not like Saudi were democrats. They have cut that journalist into pieces. They are violent dictatorship on their own right.

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
breppp 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

After being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?

pepperoni_pizza 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Were they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?

breppp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

the IAEA, presumably you trust UN agencies?

in any case, these are the mythical WMDs found in Iraq:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...

1659447091 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From your source:

> "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."

These are not the "WMD" that led to or had any involvement with 2003, it's dishonest to suggest so

breppp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

These were chemical weapons found in Iraq, the reason the new york times was interested in the story was the fact that ISIS has somehow developed chemical weapons using Iraq's existing infrastructure.

This means there were active facilities, materials and know how even after the war

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
throwaway27448 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas

I don't think much of the world has processed that Iran's ostensible lack of nuclear weapons is purely a matter of will and not capability.

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]