Истоки иранской ядерной программы: от западного сотрудничества до нынешней конфронтации

From research reactors and Western contracts to blockades and threats of war, Iran’s nuclear history is also a history of Western reversal What’s 3,000 people killed in Iran, 2,020 killed in Lebanon, 23 in Israel, and more than a dozen in Gulf states after the US launched its war against Iran? “A little Middle East work” that’s going “very well,” US President Donald Trump said at the White House last week during a state dinner for King Charles. Trump’s ‘little work’, which involved significant casualties in the region without a clearly defined objective at the outset, was later framed as serving the purpose of ensuring that “Americans and their children would not be threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.”“We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever – Charles agrees with me even more than I do – we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”Will Charles help Donald make sure there’s nothing – and no one – to allow Iran to work on its nuclear project? It seems like the US will try to level Iran to the ground anyway. According to The Atlantic, the Trump administration began considering strikes aimed not simply at Iran’s military capacity, but at the faction inside the regime that Washington believed was preventing a deal.Trump even reposted a video by Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen calling for an air campaign along those lines. According to Axios, the military prepared options for a “short and powerful” wave of strikes, which General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed the president on.The timing is politically delicate. Trump has a state visit to China scheduled for mid-May, a trip that has already been postponed once. If strikes are ordered, they could come before the trip, allowing the president to travel after demonstrating strength. Or they could come immediately afterward, once the diplomatic optics are out of the way.While Trump supplied the performance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio supplied the doctrine. When Trump spoke of military victory, royal agreement, and Iran never being allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, Rubio framed the same position as strategic necessity: Iran’s government cannot be trusted, its future intentions are already known, and any deal that fails to address the nuclear question is unacceptable. US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (L) depart the White House on their way to Florida on March 20, 2026 in Washington, DC © Getty Images / Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images The nuclear question, he said, is “the reason why we’re in this in the first place.” He insisted that if Iran’s “radical clerical regime” remained in power, it would eventually decide to pursue a nuclear weapon. Therefore, in his view, the issue has to be confronted immediately.But there is something deeply ironic in this entire spectacle. Listening to Trump and Rubio, one might think Iran’s nuclear program appeared out of nowhere – a dark project born entirely from anti-Western ideology and clerical ambition. This is far from the case. Read more War without end? How Israel became trapped in its own security doctrine Iran’s nuclear program did not begin with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It did not begin with the Islamic Republic. It did not begin as an anti-American project. It began under the Shah, when Iran was a close US ally. And it began with direct American assistance.When Iran’s nuclear dream was a Western projectThe origins of Iran’s nuclear program were actually a pro-Western modernization project of the Shah’s era, and it was the Western countries that acted as the architects in the early stages, Nikolay Sukhov, a leading researcher at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations and professor at the HSE University in Moscow, told RT.The Atoms for Peace program, launched by the Eisenhower administration, was designed to export nuclear technology to US allies for peaceful purposes: Research, energy, and medicine, Sukhov said. Under the Shah, Iran was one of Washington’s priority partners.Practical implementation began in the late 1950s, when Iran and the US signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the agreement, Washington committed to supplying Tehran with nuclear installations and equipment, and to helping train Iranian specialists. Later, in 1967, the US delivered Iran’s first research reactor. Iranian nuclear experts were trained not only in the US, but also in Britain, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and France. Specialists from Israel, West Germany, France, and the US agreed to work on the project and started laying the foundation for a reactor at Bushehr in southern Iran and a research reactor in Isfahan. Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and ratified it in 1970, formally confirming the peaceful status of its nuclear program. Read more How Washington keeps breaking the Middle East At the time, few in the West described Iran’s nuclear program as a nightmare, and very few warned that the world was about to be held hostage by Tehran’s atomic ambitions. The reason was simple: Iran was ruled by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah, a close American ally and a central pillar of US strategy in the Middle East. The Shah’s nuclear ambitions, however, weren’t limited to a peaceful project. The whole thing was part of a much larger project, the ‘White Revolution’ launched in 1963 – a sweeping modernization program that he called the “revolution of the Shah and the people.”Over the next decade and a half, Iran was transformed at extraordinary speed. A country that had recently been largely agrarian began building steel plants, machine-building factories, petrochemical complexes, automobile and tractor plants, gas and aluminum industries, and even the foundations of national shipbuilding and aircraft production. “The shah placed his bet on large-scale nuclear energy as a pillar of industrialization and as a way to reduce dependence on oil. Paradoxically, that was precisely the logic: Nuclear power would free up more oil for export,” Sukhov said.Israeli advisers, who Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reportedly listened to carefully, were among those who convinced him that a country with such vast oil wealth deserved its own nuclear power plants. This is an important detail, because today Israel presents Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as an intolerable threat by definition. But in the Shah’s Iran, Israeli involvement in strategic and technological modernization was not unusual. Iran and Israel maintained close security, intelligence, and technical ties. The same Iran that is now described as a permanent danger was then part of a regional order that Washington and its allies wanted to strengthen. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in Tehran, Iran, October 4th 1960. © Getty Images / Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images Israel’s role went back even earlier, to May 1958, when David Ben-Gurion received two Iranian nuclear scientists in his office. According to his notebooks, the visitors said they had come to establish ties with the Israeli scientific world and told him respectfully: “We have heard that in everything concerning science, you are at the level of the Americans.”The Shah’s vision was simple and grandiose: To move Iran “from the Middle Ages into the nuclear age.” The nuclear project, in his mind, would place Iran in the top ranks of Middle Eastern countries. He said Iran would have nuclear weapons “without a doubt and sooner than one would think,” a statement he later disavowed.Though the Western countries didn’t see Iran as anything but a partner, Washington did have concerns. Declassified documents from the Ford and Carter years show that US officials worried about the Shah’s interest in plutonium reprocessing, a technology that could provide a faster route to a bomb than enriched uranium. And yet no one seemed concerned enough to stop the process – or perceptive enough to notice another one unfolding in parallel: The slow build-up of a revolution that, within just a few years, would erupt. Read more How the West rejected Hamas’ democratic victory and led Gaza to disaster “Western specialists in the 1960s and 1970s were not helping Iran build a military program. They were building a classic civilian nuclear system for an allied state, one that still depended heavily on Western technology and expertise,” Sukhov said. “Yet that same system, through its personnel, infrastructure, and institutions, eventually gave Iran the tools to pursue technological sovereignty in the nuclear field later.”The Revolution that inherited the atomBy the time the Shah fell in 1979, the construction of Iran’s first two nuclear reactors, with German participation, had already entered the final stage. The monarchy was gone but the infrastructure remained. So did the idea that nuclear technology was not simply about electricity, but also about development, prestige, and national independence.“The turning point came after the Islamic Revolution. Most Western specialists left the country, projects were frozen, and cooperation with the United States and Europe came to an end. But the infrastructure already built – along with the experts Iran had trained – became the foundation for a later program that was more autonomous, more closed, and much harder for the West to control,” Sukhov said.Then came the Iran-Iraq War. From 1980 to 1988, the Bushehr area was a repeated target of Iraqi air attacks. The unfinished nuclear plant, visible from a distance, was an obvious and symbolic target. According to Iranian media cited in the source material, American assistance allegedly helped guide Saddam Hussein’s pilots toward the facility several times. The attacks killed workers, damaged parts of the plant, and turned what had once been a prestige project of the Shah into a battlefield ruin. Iranian president Abulhassan Banisadr during a visit to the frontlines © Wikipedia For Iran, watching the region around it militarize, strike first, and treat nuclear capability as a question of survival were lessons that were hard to miss. It was in the years of the Iran-Iraq War that the idea of an ‘Islamic atomic bomb’ likely began to take shape in the minds of some Iranian leaders.Publicly, the revival of the Shah’s nuclear program was presented as a matter of energy diversification. Iran had oil and gas, but it also had ambitions to become technologically self-sufficient. Nuclear technology was framed as a symbol of development and as a necessary attribute of any state that considered itself serious and sovereign. The possible military dimension was only one part of a broader Iranian drive for self-reliance in arms, technology, and industry.After Ayatollah Khomeini’s death in 1989, Iran’s approach to nuclear energy changed again. Under the new supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country resumed its nuclear ambitions and continued seeking technologies connected to nuclear capability. By the early 1990s, the country was recovering from the devastating war with Iraq and trying to rebuild a program that was disrupted by revolution, bombardment, sanctions, and the withdrawal of foreign specialists who helped build it in the first place. Read more They don’t care if you die: How Iran’s protests became a bargaining chip for oil and power Under US pressure, Germany, India, and Argentina declined to support Iran’s nuclear program. Iran turned to other partners, including China, Russia, and Pakistan. China signed nuclear cooperation protocols with Iran in 1985 and 1990, providing small research reactors, equipment related to uranium enrichment and fuel production, and more than a ton of natural uranium. Russia showed willingness to work on Iran’s civilian nuclear development, and in 1992, Moscow and Tehran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. In 1995, Iran finalized a cooperation protocol with Russia to complete the Bushehr reactor, the very project that had begun under the Shah with German involvement and which was battered during the Iran-Iraq War.This cooperation was controversial, especially in Washington. Then-President Bill Clinton pressed then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to halt nuclear assistance to Iran, reflecting American concerns that civilian nuclear cooperation could strengthen Iran’s broader technical base. In Russia, however, the argument was more complex. Some analysts believed that cooperation with Iran in nuclear energy could actually create channels of control and transparency: If Russia was involved, it would have contacts, oversight, and leverage that might help keep the project within civilian limits. The International Atomic Energy Agency did not at this stage report clear signs of a military component in Iran’s nuclear program.There was also a practical economic factor. In the difficult post-Soviet years, Russia needed major industrial contracts, and the Bushehr project promised significant revenue for Russian companies and the state. For Moscow, the project was not necessarily understood as a dramatic geopolitical gamble. It was a civilian energy contract, a continuation of a half-built plant, and a way to preserve Russia’s role in the global nuclear industry.There were, however, concerns. Some reports suggested that Russian contractors continued providing assistance beyond what Washington considered acceptable, including help involving heavy-water infrastructure and uranium mining. US and Israeli officials increasingly worried that Iran was acquiring not only nuclear power capability, but a wider industrial base that could shorten the distance to military applications if Tehran ever made the decision. View of the reactor building at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant as the first fuel is loaded, on August 21, 2010 in Bushehr, southern Iran. © Getty Images / IIPA via Getty Images By 1999, reports indicated that Iranian specialists had begun testing enrichment equipment that would eventually be connected to the facility at Natanz. Then, in 2002, the crisis entered a new stage. The Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq revealed the existence of two previously undeclared nuclear sites: Natanz and Arak. This disclosure came at a moment when the US was already focused intensely on weapons of mass destruction, ‘rogue states’, and non-state extremist actors.By early 2003, the scale of Iran’s progress had become clearer. Iran had advanced further than US intelligence had expected. It had completed a cascade of 164 centrifuges and was building many more. Natanz was designed to house tens of thousands of centrifuges. At Arak, inspectors found construction related to heavy-water production and a reactor that could produce plutonium.For the first time, Iran’s nuclear program became not just a source of suspicion, but the center of an international crisis. Read more 40 years after Chernobyl: Inside the night the Soviet nuclear dream exploded The program becomes the crisisThe snowball effect of mistrust of the same countries that helped Iran build its nuclear program is well known.Even though Iran implemented the Additional Protocol to the NPT in 2003, strengthening the IAEA’s ability to inspect and verify the program, and another agreement extending the temporary suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities in 2004, the mistrust of the Western countries did not disappear. In 2005, the US again accused Iran of violating its commitments and developing a nuclear program, citing intelligence literally found on a stolen Iranian laptop. Though experts questioned the reliability of this material, suggesting that Iranian opposition factions or a hostile state could have fabricated evidence, Washington successfully pushed for an IAEA resolution condemning Iran for a long history of concealment and failures to meet its obligations under the NPT. Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, rejected the resolution as “illegal and illogical” and described it as the result of a scenario designed by the US.From that point on, the pattern hardened. Publicly, Washington and its partners spoke of diplomacy, inspections, safeguards, and nonproliferation. Privately, the US and Israel expanded intelligence cooperation and pursued covert means to slow Iran’s progress.  Read more The CIA, wishful thinking, and imperial blindness: How the US engineered its own failure in Cuba What had begun under the Shah as a Western-supported modernization project had become, under the Islamic Republic, a permanent international crisis. The larger irony remained intact. Iran’s nuclear program began with American approval, European contracts, Israeli contacts, and international legitimacy. After 1979, the same infrastructure became radioactive in the political sense. It was no longer the nuclear dream of a friendly monarch. It was the nuclear ambition of a state that had broken with Washington.Today’s American outrage has a strange historical aftertaste. Trump wants to erase what earlier American policy helped create, and Israel wants to destroy a nuclear capacity that Israeli experts once helped nurture. The point is not that Iran’s nuclear program was ‘good’ when the West helped build it and ‘bad’ once the Islamic Republic inherited it. The point is that it became unacceptable when it was no longer in the hands of a US-aligned client state.After 1979, the same infrastructure, institutions, and expertise ended up under a government Washington could not control. And despite losing Western support, Iran managed to keep the program alive through procurement, covert development, and partial localization. Over time, this produced a more autonomous nuclear cycle. It also gave Iran the ability to move close to weapons-grade capability without formally leaving the NPT. This is what made the program so difficult for Washington to contain – not simply that Iran had nuclear technology, but that it had learned how to sustain and advance it without being a client of the West.