Beyond reality
The narrative of Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons is completely unfounded.
Hardly any war arises out of nowhere or breaks out suddenly. This surprise effect is reserved for the population in front of their screens and newspapers. There may be exceptions, but as a rule, the governments involved have prepared for such a scenario over a long period of time. This preparation also includes so-called psychological warfare, which means that citizens may be surprised by the specific events, but have been subtly conditioned over years to accept the enemy image that is now coming to the fore without criticism. In this process, repetition is more important than truth. In the case of Iran, it is the narrative that it possesses nuclear weapons that has been repeated in the public sphere until it appeared credible, despite the actual facts.
[This article posted on 7/9/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/an-der-realitat-vorbei.]
In the context of this warfare, which precedes every hot war, typical methods of manipulating the population are used. Not least the populations who are supposed to support their governments’ war. One of these methods uses the principle of reversing the burden of proof. Israeli society has been a major victim of this warfare for decades and is therefore capable of assuming the role of perpetrator. But even the populations of the self-proclaimed “West,” with its values, are exposed to manipulation of this kind and have thus been convinced, for the most part, to go along with it—passively or actively. Behind this lies the comfortable self-image of being able to live in the best of all possible social systems.
Psychological warfare against Iran
Reversing the burden of proof means undermining a fundamental principle of democratic rule of law, namely the presumption of innocence. As long as a suspicion is not proven, the suspect is presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly. Above all, however, they are not obliged to prove their own innocence.
No, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.
Incidentally, accusations without any basis are also legally irrelevant. Individuals or groups who use fabricated facts and pathological psychological methods to stigmatize people, groups, or societies—with the aim of making them fair game—are guilty of defamation and incitement to hatred and violence. This aspect alone shows us that our constitutional state is a shaky construct, because it does not prevent excesses such as defamation. And the higher this reaches into politics, the more timid it becomes. Because the judiciary is not allowed to act independently of politics. This brings us to Iran.
For decades, the Islamic country in Central Asia has been accused of actively working on the development of nuclear weapons. And for decades, there has been no evidence to support this accusation.
But psychological warfare has succeeded in making people, especially in Western countries including Israel, accept this accusation, this slander, this lie as truth. And that is exactly what psychological warfare is all about. Its fundamental strategy is to convince people of something whose truth is irrelevant. Their fears, their primal instincts, so to speak, are supposed to override their reason and let their emotions rule.
There is a strategic and, of course, an operational component to why Iran is being slandered on such a grotesque scale. The latter means nothing other than that Iran is to be embroiled in a war and its government overthrown. It’s as simple as that. Does this have anything to do with democracy and human rights? No, it doesn’t. Not in reality, but it does in the virtual world. Because the mullahs in Tehran are assumed to have no interest in these values. That may be true. But behind this lies the undemocratic claim that there is no alternative to the Western system. So the argument is also just part of psychological warfare to portray the enemy as the epitome of evil. Let’s not forget that Libya and Syria also insisted on their sovereignty and were punished for it. But Iran is a different story.
The strategic component is easy to describe: The aim is to destroy Iran as an independent state. Whether it then continues to exist as a failed state or as a vassal, whether it is crushed and fragmented, whether it is worn down by bloody internal conflicts, is then of secondary importance—see Libya, Syria, Congo, and Sudan. But its future role is that of an object and not that of a sovereign, self-determined subject. The strategic aircraft carrier for the subjugation not only of Iran has a memorable name: Israel. Israel is the thorn in the side of the Middle East.
It is perfectly clear that, from a geostrategic point of view, the war against Iran is implicitly aimed at Russia and China. These three states are seen as rebellious, their sovereignty is hated. If only because their governments resist Western greed for the natural resources of these sovereign states. All three states are characterized by rich natural resources, a developed economy and science, political stability, a certain degree of self-sufficiency, and above all a strong military-industrial complex.
Western, especially British, and later Anglo-American politics has always been characterized by a desire to fragment and fillet sovereign entities so that they can be gutted later.
This is how simply their principle of plundering, which has become second nature to them, can be explained. Ultimately, any means are justified to achieve this end. This includes psychological warfare, trickery and deception, slander and stigmatization.
The following remarks on Iran’s nuclear research program should therefore not be misunderstood as a defense of Iran.
There is no need for that. Rather, they are intended to provide those in this country whose minds have been manipulated with insights that may enable them to question, at least in part, their own image of Iran, which has been imposed on them from outside. And with that, the role that Israel and the so-called West of values play in this shabby game.
Let us use some comments made by Jochen Mitschka, a freelance journalist, which, it should be noted, he put on paper in 2018. The fact that his research at that time is still relevant today is astonishing (a1). However, one thing should be made clear once again:
Israel has its own nuclear weapons program, possesses nuclear weapons, has not signed any treaty to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and does not allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
For the mainstream media here, which smoothly lives by double standards, this is of course no cause for concern.
The Iran documents
“On April 30, 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in a widely publicized television show with a multimedia PowerPoint presentation that Iran had a nuclear weapons program and was violating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Thousands of pages, i.e., all documents relating to the program, had allegedly been “found,” and this would prove the existence of the nuclear weapons program.
In fact, the documents presented proved the opposite of what was claimed. They showed that Iran had already abandoned its theoretical [sic] nuclear weapons program in 2003. That is, long before the nuclear deal with the old nuclear powers and Germany was concluded. Iran had apparently allowed its contractual partners to believe that it might have a nuclear weapons program in order to extract the best possible sanctions relief in the negotiations. Even the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which is quite critical of Iran, wrote [in 2018]:
“What the Israeli prime minister presented on Monday was not a smoking gun, but a years-old photograph of a smoking gun […] He failed to show one thing: decisive data proving that Iran is currently doing anything that contradicts the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action […] since it was signed in 2015.” (1)
And further:
“The information Netanyahu revealed on Monday will not be new to the leaders of the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, who also signed the JCPOA. […] We have learned nothing new about Iran’s nuclear program, nothing that we did not already know or that had not already been reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency.” (1i)
Here is a brief summary of the facts mentioned above, along with a summary of how the media in Germany and other countries that obviously consider themselves opponents of Iran commented on the country’s nuclear policy — or rather, what was deliberately omitted because it did not fit the narrative. This concerns in particular Iran’s activities up to 2003.
The false narrative claims that Iran operated a secret and active nuclear weapons development program prior to 2003 and that the country attempted to procure equipment on the black market to run a secret nuclear bomb program. What is omitted is that since the early 1980s, the Iranian government had been trying to find international partners for its newly launched nuclear energy program, only to find that the US denied it access to nuclear technology, which constitutes a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Accordingly, every state that has acceded to the treaty has the right to receive assistance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In 1982, following the discovery of uranium deposits, Iranian state media reported that Iran had taken concrete steps to import nuclear technology while at the same time expanding its own expertise.
In 1983, the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency invited the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the Iranian nuclear facilities in Esfahan and Tehran and requested the organization’s assistance in developing research, exploiting its own uranium deposits, enrichment, and the possible construction of a pilot plant.
When the US government learned of the possible cooperation, it intervened and demanded that the IAEA refrain from providing any assistance to Iran (2). Later, in the 1990s, US President Bill Clinton even persuaded the Chinese government to refrain from providing assistance. However, Iran continued its own research and discovered further uranium deposits in 1985. The BBC reported on the discovery near Yazd in 2003 (3). In early 1990, the IAEA was full of praise for Iran’s progress after visiting the uranium mines and finding no cause for concern.
In 2000, Iran informed the IAEA that it had built a uranium conversion facility (UCF) near Esfahan. This facility was designed to produce UF6, the starting material for further enrichment in centrifuges, on an industrial scale from so-called “yellowcake.” The size of the facility, the open notification to the IAEA, and subsequent inspections made it seem impossible that there was a covert weapons program.
The “discovery” of a pilot enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran, which was allegedly built in secret, is often mentioned. However, the facility was reported to the IAEA in 2002 while it was still under construction.
Under the agreements with the IAEA, Iran was only required to report such a pilot plant 180 days before its expected commissioning. Iran had always denied keeping the plant secret. In 2004, Iran’s representative to the IAEA told the Financial Times:
“There was no secret about Natanz. How can it be secret when there are several hundred hectares of land and a sign that says ‘Atomic Energy Organization,’ and when buses from Tehran to Natanz stop at a station called ‘Atomic Station’?” (4)
After Natanz was publicly disclosed to the IAEA, the country announced in February 2003 that it would begin mining uranium at Saghand for a domestically developed enrichment program. The IAEA then stated that this came as no surprise to the organization and that an IAEA official had visited the mine in 1992.
Natanz was opened in June 2006 after the facility had already been under IAEA observation for three years. What Western media mostly failed to mention was the 2007 work plan developed between Iran and the IAEA. This plan outlined ways to resolve outstanding issues. These issues concerned the accusations made by the US and Israel. Referring to this plan, IAEA chief Mohammed El Baradei pointed out that no declared activities indicating a weapons program had come to light (5).
This conclusion had been reached after two years of voluntary inspections by the IAEA, which also provided for a postponement of the enrichment program and allowed inspectors complete and unhindered access to Iranian facilities. Contrary to the repeated allegations of a weapons program, the inspectors confirmed the opposite.
Then, however, the IAEA changed its objective. “Evidence” emerged of alleged ‘studies’ for nuclear weapons, which were also considered dubious by the IAEA. And yet the IAEA confirmed that “there is no credible evidence that nuclear material has been diverted to a possible military program” (6).
In May 2018, Israel and the US claimed that they had documents proving that Iran had a military nuclear weapons program. However, the US stated that it did not intend to make these documents available to the IAEA, as it had received them from Israel and only that country could make them available to the IAEA (7).
When the US “revealed” in 2009 that Iran was building another enrichment plant in Fordow, which it had “kept secret” from the IAEA, the construction of the plant was still far from reaching the stage that would have required Iran to report it to the International Atomic Energy Agency. What the media “forgot” to mention is that Iran had notified the IAEA of the facility five days before Barack Obama’s “dramatic revelations” (8).
As mentioned above, such a report had to be made 180 days before commissioning. In early 2018, Israeli newspapers published satellite images that allegedly showed “unusual activities” at the Fordow facility monitored by the IAEA. Interestingly, the supervisory authority was not asked to comment, but instead a propaganda storm was unleashed: “Iran begins enrichment in Fordow.” When Iran announced the IAEA inspection of the facility in February 2018, it was largely ignored by the media. The same was true of the fact that inspectors found no violations by Iran in March.
IAEA Deputy Director Herman Nackaerts stated back in 2013:
“We would know within a week if Iran were to divert uranium from known facilities and attempt to enrich it to weapons-grade levels.”
He also stated at the time that six IAEA inspectors were on site in Iran every day, monitoring the 16 facilities. On average, he noted, this meant that the inspectors inspected the enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow once a week. If there were any suspicious cases, they could of course check more often. (8i).
Observation in the German public media: SWF 3 reported on the speech for the first time on the evening after Netanyahu’s PowerPoint presentation on April 30, 2018, concluding that he had not proven that Iran had violated the agreement. At 10 p.m., this sentence was missing from the news. Instead, greater emphasis was placed on the fact that US President Donald Trump saw his policy vindicated.
While all neutral parties confirm that Iran is fully complying with its obligations under the JCPOA, the US is much more clearly suspected of violating the agreement.
The Atlantic explained why this is the case:
“American journalists often describe the agreement as a trade. In the words of a CNN report, ‘Iran commits to limiting its nuclear program and, in exchange, receives relief from economic sanctions.’ But there is more to it than that. The deal only requires the United States to lift nuclear sanctions. It also requires the US not to hinder Iran’s reintegration into the global economy.” (9)
And further:
“Article 26 commits the US and its allies not to interfere with Iran’s realization of the benefits it receives from the lifting of sanctions, as set out in the agreement. Article 29 commits the US and European countries to ‘refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran’.. Article 33 obliges them to ‘agree to take steps to ensure Iran’s access to trade, technology, finance, and energy.’“ (9i)
The author then explains why Trump is very likely already violating these treaty provisions:
”The Washington Post reported that at the NATO summit last May, Trump tried to convince European partners to stop trade and business deals with Iran. Then in July, Trump’s director of legislative affairs boasted that at the G20 summit in Germany, Trump ‘emphasized the need for nations to stop doing business with nations that support terrorism, especially Iran’. Both instances of lobbying were specific and directly aimed at preventing the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.” (9ii)
But that is not all. In July 2017, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Iran (10). In addition, Iran and the safety of air operations are suffering greatly from the country’s inability to obtain spare parts for commercial aircraft purchased in the US. The requests made by Iran to the Obama administration for delivery after the conclusion of the JCPOA had remained unanswered for two years (11). At the time of publication of this analysis, it was still unclear whether parts or aircraft would ever be delivered.
The agreement on the control of nuclear research and its applications in Iran, the JCPOA, contains a precise protocol on how to proceed if doubts arise as to whether Iran is fulfilling its obligations. The US, as a party to the agreement, would have to initiate these procedures if it had such doubts, which could lead to new significant sanctions, including by the Security Council.
However, the US refused to follow the procedures laid down in the agreement and claimed that it could withdraw from the agreement at will — an agreement with multiple partners and the blessing of the UN Security Council.
And no one raised their voice to point out the provisions of the agreement.” (12)
So much for Jochen Mitschka’s analysis. This confirms once again that all the accusations made by the West — including Israel, which illegally acquired nuclear weapons — accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons are simply part of a long-term psychological operation directed primarily against the populations of the West. They are to be made to accept a hot war against Iran. They are the decisive target group, which must actively or at least passively allow this war to become feasible. It must first enter their minds before it becomes reality on the battlefield.
In 2018, the same methods were used against Iran as are being used today. The image of Iran as an enemy has been intensively cultivated over the past seven years so that it will bear rich fruit. When the defenders of Western values unscrupulously trample on international law while demonizing their self-appointed enemies as the incarnation of evil, they are continuing a dark European tradition. After all, during their raids on the American double continent, the Spanish conquistadors were also preceded by representatives of their Christian values: priests. Well, we hear no less sermons today. Their modern form is evident in psychological operations and blatant propaganda.
Please remain vigilant, dear readers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mark Twain in The Mysterious Stranger, 1861
The loud little handful—as usual—will shout for the war. The pulpit will—warily and cautiously—object—at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, “It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.” Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers—as earlier—but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation—pulpit and all—will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
― The Mysterious Stranger
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/908563-the-mysterious-stranger-or-the-chronicle-of-young-satan