Debating the Bomb:

The Evolution of Nuclear Discourse in Iran

How do nuclear weapons shift from being morally unacceptable to strategically necessary within an authoritarian state? Debating the Bomb examines how nuclear discourse in the Islamic Republic of Iran evolved from a tightly managed civilian narrative to an increasingly contested domain where the idea of weaponization became discussable and, for some, justified. Rather than assuming a linear path toward proliferation or an elite-imposed narrative, the book focuses on the internal contestation of nuclear norms between 2002 and 2024. It identifies three discursive phases: an early period of hegemonic civilian framing centered on scientific advancement, religious restraint, and sovereign rights; a moment of discursive rupture following the collapse of the JCPOA and growing disillusionment with diplomacy; and a more recent phase in which the idea of nuclear deterrence has gained traction, yet remains deeply controversial.

While much of the existing literature on proliferation under authoritarianism focuses on regime type, elite preferences, or international constraints, this book centers the discursive contestation of nuclear norms within Iran. A central argument is that the shift in discourse has not been monolithic or uncontested. Although weaponization has become more openly discussed, framed by some as a rational response to the Islamic Republic’s diminishing conventional deterrent and growing vulnerability, a broad array of actors continue to articulate principled and strategic opposition to nuclear arms.

Rather than assuming a unified trajectory toward proliferation, Debating the Bomb foregrounds the genuinely contested nature of Iran’s nuclear discourse. It shows that Iran is not on an inevitable path toward the bomb, nor is it simply constrained by external pressure. Instead, the country is experiencing a profound internal reckoning over the strategic, ethical, and symbolic meaning of nuclear weapons, a debate that complicates simplistic narratives about preordained state behavior.

Empirically, the study draws on a rich media archive, hundreds of elite speeches, including over 240 addresses by the Supreme Leader, public opinion surveys, and a series of in-depth interviews with political insiders, policymakers, and civil society actors. This multi-method approach allows the book to trace the evolution of nuclear discourse across formal state rhetoric, public messaging, elite contestation, and grassroots interpretation. The result is a textured empirical foundation for understanding how ideas once deemed illegitimate or unspeakable, such as nuclear weaponization, gradually became subjects of serious debate, while competing narratives of moral restraint and strategic caution persist.