In his June 4 speech, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei went beyond merely rejecting the latest U.S. nuclear proposal. He delivered an elaborate defense of why he believes Iran must not restrict its uranium enrichment activities. However, his arguments—centered on the supposed scientific and strategic value of the nuclear program—are riddled with contradictions, flawed logic, and misleading claims.
Khamenei’s remarks focused on two central themes:
- The importance of the nuclear industry
- The necessity of domestic uranium enrichment
He claimed that the nuclear industry is not just about generating electricity but also has applications in medicine, agriculture, aerospace, and precision technology. Still, his portrayal of the industry’s value and his insistence on enrichment as essential are fraught with inconsistencies.
Is Nuclear Technology a “Mother Industry”?
Khamenei declared:
“The nuclear industry is a mother industry. Numerous scientific fields are influenced by it—fields such as advanced technologies, including medical equipment, aerospace, precision sensors, and electronics. These are all connected to and influenced by nuclear science. Basic sciences and engineering fields like nuclear physics, energy engineering, materials engineering, and medical and pharmaceutical applications in both diagnosis and treatment—all are affected by the nuclear industry. In agriculture and environmental industries, there are numerous areas dependent on or influenced by nuclear technology. It is a mother industry.”
In development economics, a “mother industry” is one that forms the backbone of an economy—industries like steel, petrochemicals, and electricity, which supply essential inputs and infrastructure for other sectors. While nuclear technology does have critical applications in medicine, power, aerospace, and research, it is not foundational to a nation’s industrial ecosystem in the way that steel or energy is.
No advanced economy classifies nuclear technology as a mother industry. It remains a specialized, high-tech field with limited applicability across broad industrial domains.
Is Nuclear Power Truly “Clean Energy”?
Khamenei also claimed that the nuclear industry provides “clean energy.” Yet in modern energy discourse, “clean energy” refers primarily to renewables such as wind and solar—sources that are sustainable and pose minimal environmental risks. Nuclear energy, due to its radioactive waste and accident potential, is not classified as clean.
Germany, for instance, has phased out all of its nuclear power plants for precisely these reasons. Moreover, nuclear energy is expensive. Generating electricity from nuclear power costs around $190 per megawatt-hour, while solar costs up to $95 and wind just $75.
Is the Industry “Useless” Without Enrichment?
Khamenei stated:
“This massive nuclear industry is useless without the ability to enrich uranium.”
This statement flatly contradicts his earlier claim that the industry has wide applications—in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and research. Most of these uses do not require uranium enrichment, especially not domestic enrichment. Radioisotope production, seed treatment, medical equipment sterilization, and nuclear research can all be conducted without local enrichment facilities.
If other nations benefit from these uses without enrichment, how can Khamenei assert that the industry is “useless” without it?
Which Countries Have Nuclear Programs Without Enrichment?
Many developed countries operate sophisticated nuclear programs without uranium enrichment. These include Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Australia, Belgium, and South Korea.
South Korea, for instance, produces hundreds of medical radioisotopes, imports nuclear fuel from sources outside the U.S., and exports medical isotopes to other countries. Despite lacking enrichment capabilities, it has built one of the world’s most advanced nuclear sectors.
Iran, despite decades of investment and high costs, has yet to achieve similar outcomes. These countries do not consider their nuclear industries “useless” simply because they lack enrichment.
Is the Global Fuel Market Controlled by the U.S.?
Khamenei warned:
“A nuclear power plant needs fuel, and if we cannot produce it domestically, we’ll have to beg the Americans, who may impose dozens of conditions.”
In reality, nuclear fuel is traded globally, like oil and gas. Key suppliers include France’s Orano, Russia’s Rosatom (TVEL), and the European Urenco consortium (Netherlands, Germany, UK). Many countries source fuel from these suppliers—not from the U.S.—without compromising sovereignty.
Even Iran has experience with this model. In 1987, it signed a $5.5 million deal with Argentina’s INVAP to convert the Tehran Research Reactor to low-enriched uranium (LEU) and supply fuel. Argentina delivered 115.8 kg of 19.7%-enriched uranium, used by 1993. The agreement, under IAEA oversight, proves enrichment is not essential to secure nuclear fuel internationally.
Enrichment for Power Plants That Don’t Exist
Khamenei also said:
“Even if we had a hundred nuclear power plants, they would be useless without enrichment.”
This hypothetical overlooks a basic reality: Iran has only one nuclear power plant—Bushehr—whose construction began in 1971 and was completed in 2011 with Russian help. No additional plants have been built or operationalized since.
Even Bushehr doesn’t use Iranian fuel. On the day of Khamenei’s speech, former atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi confirmed that Russia does not allow Iranian-made fuel to be used in the reactor, insisting instead on Russian-supplied fuel.
If enrichment is so vital, why hasn’t Iran built more plants since achieving 3.5% enrichment in 2006? Meanwhile, the country suffers from severe power shortages—even hospitals often receive only a few hours of electricity per day.
The True Cost of the Nuclear Program
The Islamic Republic has spent two decades pouring enormous resources into overt and covert nuclear projects, enrichment capabilities, and deceiving the IAEA—only to trigger harsh international sanctions.
A former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization once said the nuclear program had cost the country as much as $2 trillion.
Sanctions-related costs are even higher:
- Former Central Bank chief Abdolnaser Hemmati described enormous expenses to bypass sanctions—via intermediaries, inflated transport costs, and lost oil revenues.
- Expediency Council member Ahmad Tavakkoli warned of a “sanctions-evasion mafia” that wastes vast national resources.
- A parliamentary report (2019–2021) cited higher trade costs, declining investment, and systemic corruption as consequences of sanctions.
According to estimates, sanctions between 2011 and 2022 caused $1.2 trillion in economic losses—around $14,000 per Iranian. Research cited by the former head of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce suggested annual GDP losses of $101 billion, or $1,200 per person.
Conclusion
Khamenei’s defense of Iran’s nuclear program emphasizes its scientific and medical benefits—but ultimately reduces its value to uranium enrichment, which is only a small component of nuclear technology.
Enrichment is not what makes a nuclear program useful. Dozens of countries operate successful, peaceful nuclear programs without it. Iran itself has imported enriched fuel in the past, without needing its own enrichment infrastructure.
Rather than advancing Iran’s scientific standing or economy, the nuclear program has resulted in massive financial costs, crippling sanctions, and economic decline. Today, as reports indicate that two-thirds of Iranians live below the poverty line, Khamenei’s insistence on enrichment looks less like strategy—and more like a costly obsession.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
