Storm in Iran: President's son claimed uranium enrichment is unnecessary - and was attacked
Yousef Pezeshkian joined a line of thought questioning the viability of the nuclear program. "Enrichment is not a religious principle, it is not our honor, and our survival does not depend on it," he wrote. Conservatives attacked him sharply, sparking a debate regarding nuclear weapons.
A debate in Iran surrounding the cost of the nuclear program and uranium enrichment has developed into a broad political storm, after the son and advisor of President Masoud Pezeshkian, Yousef Pezeshkian, defended remarks that questioned the viability of continuing uranium enrichment during wartime, saying that Iran is essentially paying too high a price for it.
The storm began following remarks made by Jafar Ghaempanah, one of President Pezeshkian's deputies. Ghaempanah argued that Iran should consider the costs involved in pursuing the nuclear program, especially in light of the threat of further attacks against the country. "Wisdom means achieving a goal that can be achieved at the lowest possible cost," he said.
His remarks sparked sharp criticism from conservative and hawkish elements, but the debate intensified even further after Yousef Pezeshkian joined him on Saturday.
"Enrichment is not a religious principle, it is not our honor, and our survival does not depend on it," he wrote in a story he posted on Instagram.
On Sunday, the younger Pezeshkian posted another story, in which he emphasized that decisions must be made with full awareness of their consequences. According to him, Iran should promote uranium enrichment, missiles, and UAVs only if it serves its interests. However, he did not retract his main claim: our survival does not depend on enrichment.
The attack from the hawkish camp
Yadollah Javani, the deputy head of the IRGC for political affairs, rejected the claim that giving up uranium enrichment would have prevented war or pressure on Iran. In an interview with state television, he argued that there is no basis for the claim that the nuclear program is the main reason for the pressure exerted on Iran, although Donald Trump and his administration emphasize that the only option for them now for an attack on Iran is progress in the nuclear program.
The hawkish newspaper Kayhan attacked the positions of Ghaempanah and Yousef Pezeshkian sharply, calling them subversive. The conservative newspaper Khorasan also came out against the idea that the uranium enrichment program can be examined through a cost-benefit economic calculation alone. The newspaper added that continued enrichment might also leave open the possibility of developing what are known as dirty bombs, in a way that might cause Iran's rivals to reconsider their calculations.
Pezeshkian receives support
On the other hand, elements identified with the reformist camp in Iran argued that the critics of Ghaempanah and Yousef Pezeshkian prefer ideological commitments over the prices paid by the citizens of Iran. The website Rouydad 24 argued that the attacks reflect opposition to an approach that seeks to define national security through realism and in accordance with the interests of the population.
Journalist Davoud Heshmati also rejected the claim that giving up uranium enrichment would necessarily lead to Washington presenting additional demands. Heshmati argued that the dispute surrounding the Iranian nuclear program is ultimately related to Israel's security concerns, and warned against an attempt to develop a nuclear capability that Iran is unable to properly defend: "A bomb that you cannot defend is actually a basis for the killing of your own people," he wrote.
The debate in Iran is no longer focused only on the question of whether uranium enrichment justifies the price it exacts from the country. The deeper dispute concerns the lessons that Iran should draw from the war, specifically whether the country's vulnerability makes maintaining strategic capabilities more important or if those risks require Tehran to re-examine the meaning of national security.
