Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Israel is an apartheid state – and its weird marriage laws show us how

 Israel is an apartheid state – and its weird marriage laws show us how

Israel is the only country in the world that does not recognise its own nationality. Why? Because a common national identity would sabotage Israel’s carefully veiled system of segregation.

Johnathan Cook, June 30th.

Israel’s supporters have gone apoplectic over a short post on X from the journalist Mehdi Hasan, highlighting Israel’s peculiar marriage laws.

Hasan asks: “Did you know that you can’t have a civil or secular marriage in Israel?”

He’s not wrong. Israel has banned civil marriage. You can wed only in a ceremony strictly controlled by religious authorities. If you want a civil marriage, you have to travel to another country. 

Why, you might reasonably wonder. Isn’t Israel a modern, secular, western-style liberal democracy? After all, that’s what our politicians and media keep telling us.

The most popular rejoinder to Hasan from Israel’s apologists – that the situation is no better in Saudi Arabia – is not quite the flex they seem to imagine. So Israel offers the same human rights protections as Saudi Arabia? Impressive.

Others have pointed out that Israel inherited the so-called “millet” system from the Ottoman empire, which gave the leaders of each confessional group across the Middle East autonomous control over their community’s religious affairs.

Doubtless, 150 years ago the system worked relatively well in reducing communal tensions in religiously diverse parts of a large empire. It prevented officials in Constantinople – modern-day Istanbul – from getting dragged deeply into the day-to-day affairs of its often distant subjects.

But 150 years ago, Britain sent children up chimneys to sweep them. The law was changed around that time to stop this abusive and dangerous practice.

Israel was established nearly eight decades ago, supposedly as a secular, western-style liberal democracy. It has had 78 years to change those archaic Ottoman marriage laws.

Why hasn’t it done so?

All the bluster decrying Hasan’s post is a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that Israel’s antiquated marriage laws survive because they are useful to Israel.

In fact, they are more than that. They are a core component of Israel’s version of apartheid – a racist system of segregation Israel has successfully shielded from the view of western publics with the help of western politicians and media.

‘Demographic threat’

Israel’s ban on civil marriage is central to its efforts to prevent what past racist societies, such as apartheid South Africa and the American Deep South, termed “miscegenation” – that is, sexual relations between different ethnic groups. You might remember that the Nazis had unpleasant views on this subject too.

Here is the current finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, opposing miscegenation in 2016: 

Preventing assimilation in the Jewish state is completely legitimate and not at all racist. You are assuming as a basis for the discussion that preventing intermarriage is wrong, while ignoring the fact that most [Jewish] girls who go with Arabs are poor girls who are being used.

Former education minister Rafi Peretz called mixed marriages involving Jews a “second Holocaust”. 

In Israel, such views are entirely mainstream. In 2018, Yitzhak Herzog, Israel’s current president and the former leader of an ostensible leftwing Israeli party, described mixed marriages among American Jews as a “plague” for which a “solution” had to be found – presumably by copying Israel’s approach. 

In Israel, the chief concern is not about marriages between Jews and the Palestinians under occupation – which Israel and its supporters like, bogusly, to present as a straightforward “security” matter. 

In the occupied territories, Israel uses far blunter methods than laws to prevent any kind of intimate relations developing between Jews and a captive Palestinian population. It prefers physical containment and violence. 

Palestinians under occupation are forcibly separated from Israeli Jews. They are hemmed into their own tightly confined ghettoes by Israel’s network of steel and concrete barriers; by the Israeli army; by checkpoints; by separate, apartheid roads in the West Bank; and by Jewish militias living on stolen lands in so-called “settlements”.

There is little chance of interaction, let alone intermarriage, in such circumstances – except when Israeli soldiers or armed Jewish settlers come rampaging into Palestinian communities to destroy cropskill livestockpoison wellstorch homes and cars, and beat up – and sometimes kill – the inhabitants.

Nonetheless, there is still a potential vulnerability in Israel’s system of segregation.

In 1948, Israel expelled 80 per cent of the Palestinian population from their homes and lands in an area that was henceforth to be called, not Palestine, but the “Jewish” state of Israel. 

A few Palestinians remained, however, inside those borders – mostly from oversight or error. Despite covert efforts by Israel for several years after the 1948 war to force them out of the state, its officials eventually came under international pressure to give these stranded Palestinians citizenship – even if in practice, as we shall see, this conferred on them very inferior rights.

Even today, Israel is extremely worried about a supposed threat from its third-class Palestinian “citizens” – officially termed “Israel’s Arabs”. Given a higher birth rate, their numbers have grown exponentially over eight decades. They now comprise a fifth of Israel’s population. 

Israeli journalists, academics and politicians, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regularly call the country’s Palestinian citizens a “demographic threat”, and endlessly worry about the “Palestinian womb”. 

No state of all its citizens

But Israel faces a countervailing pressure. If it makes its treatment of Palestinian citizens too obviously racist and oppressive, some outsiders might start to realise it is not the secular western-style liberal democracy it claims to be.

You will hear the pro-Israel lobby in the West tell you that so-called “Israeli Arabs” have exactly the same rights as Israel’s Jewish population, guaranteed by Israel’s Declaration of Independence. That is not even remotely true.

Adalah, a leading legal rights group in Israel, has a database showing more than 70 laws that explicitly discriminate between Jewish citizens and Palestinian citizens. These laws form the core of Israel’s apartheid system.

Israel’s Basic Laws, a sort of constitution, explicitly exclude any principle of civic equality. Every attempt by a Palestinian party in Israel to get a debate in the parliament on Israel becoming a “state of all its citizens” – that is, a liberal democracy – is barred from discussion. And in 2018 the Israeli government passed a Nation-State Law declaring that Israel belongs to the Jewish people, not to all the citizens who live there. 

As with Palestinians under occupation, Israel has almost entirely confined its Palestinian citizens to their own segregated, underfunded, under-resourced communities (townships) on less then 3 per cent of the country’s land. 

A small minority of Palestinian citizens inside Israel live in segregated, deprived neighbourhoods of what are misleadingly termed “mixed” cities. Other Palestinian citizens, the most oppressed of all, live in communities inhabited by their families for centuries but which have been criminalised by an Israeli state that refuses to recognise them.

Many hundreds of Jewish rural communities, by contrast, operate effectively as exclusive membership clubs. They have the power to excludePalestinian citizens – a right they take full advantage of.

Separate planning structures ensure massively overcrowded Palestinian communities inside Israel are unable to build new homes and expand. Palestinian children are schooled in a separate and much inferior education system. 

For the who wish to dig deeper, I have written a lengthy essay setting out the details of Israel’s apartheid system here.

The ban on civil marriage inside Israel’s borders is not usually cited, even by critics, as an example of its apartheid system of rule. But the ban persists because it is the ideal way to conceal segregation under the veneer of equal treatment.

Israel’s Palestinian citizens must marry in ceremonies conducted by their religious community’s leaders: by Muslim clerics, or by various Christian churches, or by the Druze clergy.

It is the same for Jews in israel. They must be married by an Orthodox rabbi.

So everyone faces the same restrictions. But the point is this: the equality of treatment ensures very unequal outcomes. It is designed that way.

Fascist thugs

Inside Israel, intermarriage is only possible if one party can convert to their partner’s religion.

Israel’s Orthodox rabbinate makes it impossible for Palestinians under occupation to convert to Judaism in Israel, with the head of its conversion authority stating in 2016 that any such applicants are rejected “without review because of their ethnic origin”. 

Meanwhile, Israel makes almost as difficult for anyone else considered a non-Jew to convert to Judaism, most especially Palestinian citizens. Over decades, there have been only a handful of such cases. 

In practice, this means that in any relationship between a Palestinian citizen of Israel and an Israeli Jew, it almost always falls to the Israeli Jew to convert to the religion of the Palestinian citizen, whether a Muslim, Christian or Druze. That entails the Jewish partner losing their Jewish status and the many consequential privileges inside Israel that derive from that status. 

Israel has found this is a much better solution than apartheid South Africa’s, where blacks and whites were explicitly barred by law from marrying. Israel can achieve the same result more quietly. 

Given the entirely segregated structure of Israeli society, and the strong social taboos among Israeli Jews on “miscegenation”, the number of intermarriages in Israel between Jews and Palestinian citizens barely reaches double digits each year.

There are even groups like Lehava – Israel’s version of the Ku Klux Klan – that go around beating up Palestinians caught anywhere near Jewish neighbourhoods in Jerusalem and terrorising any young Jewish women suspected of being romantically involved with a Palestinian. Lehava hold noisy and disruptive protests to shame the odd Jewish woman who converts and marries a Palestinian citizen. 

All of this happens with a quiet wink from the authorities. The current police minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has long been a patron of the fascist, Jewish supremacist thugs of Lehava.

In the rare cases of a Jew converting and marrying a Palestinian citizen, the Palestinian partner faces innumerable legal and social obstacles to integrating into a Jewish community they do not belong to.

Instead, the Jewish partner moves to a Palestinian community – an Israeli version of a township like Soweto – and educates their children inside the vastly inferior “Arab” school system. The former Jew loses most of the ethnic privileges they previously enjoyed inside the world’s only “Jewish” state.

Faced with this as their future, such couples often seize the opportunity for neither to convert and instead marry and live abroad.

Jewish ‘nation’

None of these difficulties are accidental. It is exactly how you would expect an apartheid system that prefers to obscure its apartheid character to structure its laws – and thereby help its lobby in the West, including the western political and media class, to claim that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East”.

Israel learnt from the mistakes of the old South Africa. It mastered the modern arts of public relations – or at least it did until Benjamin Netanyahu tore up the script by erasing Gaza.

Inside Israel, the apartheid system extends far beyond marriage laws to touch all areas of life.

Here is another way Israel has obscured its apartheid system – again not in the occupied territories, but inside Israel itself.

The same system that denies Israelis the possibility of a civil or secular marriage also refuses to recognise that they have any kind of civil or secular identity, simply as Israelis. By law, everyone in Israel must belong to a confessional group: as a Jew, Muslim, Christian or Druze. 

Which makes sense of another little-known fact about Israel: Israel is the only country in the world that does not recognise its own – in this case, Israeli – nationality. Why? For the simple reason that, were Israelis to share a common national identity, it would be much harder for the Israeli state to operate its apartheid system. 

Israeli nationality exists only as a fiction on Israeli passports to allow the population to travel internationally. Inside Israel, everyone is identified by their confessional group. 

In Israel, “Jewish” is treated as a nationality. Remember the 2018 Nation State Law. What it declared is that the state of Israel belongs exclusively to the “nation” of Jews – that is, to every Jew around the globe, not just those living in Israel. 

Muslims and Christians are lumped together into a similarly artificial “Arab” nationality, while the Druze have their own, different nationality. The same Nation State Law makes clear that the state of Israel does not belong to these other “nations”, despite their families having lived on the same lands for centuries. Palestinian citizens are nothing more than guests – and unwelcome ones at that. 

This segregation carries through to Israel’s ID cards. These cards, which must be carried at all times, used to include a section that expressly showed the “nationality” of each Israeli. But this section attracted uncomfortable scrutiny during a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle by a group of dissident Israelis seeking recognition of an Israeli nationality. Officials removed the category from the card. However, Israel’s population register still includes a nationality classification. 

In addition to Jew, Arab and Druze, there are more than 120 other categories to deal with all the anomalies. I was just one such anomaly after I married a Palestinian Christian and entered a lengthy and difficult naturalisation process. My nationality was classed as “British”. 

Why all this complexity? Why all this unique weirdness? 

Because Israel needs to conceal its system of apartheid. The old South Africa simply said: one law for whites and another for blacks. 

Israel knows this no longer plays well. So it has devised a convoluted, baffling system that few understand as a way to avoid attracting attention and criticism. 

Special Jewish rights

So let’s end with just one example of how Israel’s apartheid system works in practice. 

Notionally, Israel confers on all its citizens – Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze – equal rights as citizens. But with a sleight of hand, it then undermines those equal rights by conferring superior “national” rights on one group only, Jews. If there is a conflict between a citizenship right and a Jewish “national” right, you’ve probably already guessed that the Jewish national right takes precedence. 

Education is a good illustration. All Israeli citizens enjoy a right to have their children educated, because education is a citizenship right. But lots of veiled manoeuvres – like extra budgets for National Priority Areas, special subsidies for Jewish religious schools, funding from the diaspora, and bigger tax disbursements from central government for Jewish local authorities – mean Jewish schools are far better funded than “Arab” schools.

Education for Israel’s Palestinian citizens has been underfunded for eight decades. So even though Israel’s apologists will claim the funding gaps are slowly narrowing, the continuing shortfall simply compounds a decades-long historical injustice. Arab schools are so far behind they can never catch up without aggressive additional funding Israel clearly has no intention of ever offering them.

There are massive shortages of classrooms and staff in dilapidated school buildings. Old books are often grossly outdated and poorly translated into Arabic by the state. Palestinian educational leaders have no input into the curriculum the community’s children are taught. There are strict controls by Jewish (usually racist) officials over what can be taught and who can teach. And on top of all this, huge cultural biases in matriculation exams make it far harder for Palestinian citizens to gain entry to universities in Israel. 

There are many other problems. For example, nearly one in 10 Palestinian children in Israel live in historic communities built on lands that the Israeli state now wishes to “Judaise” – reserve for the Jewish population – and are therefore denied all recognition. 

Treated like criminals, these children rarely have schools in their communities because no permanent buildings are allowed. What buildings there are cannot be connected to the electricity or water grids. Even children of kindergarten age must typically travel long distances – sometimes close to 60 km a day – to get to a licensed school. 

The forms of discrimination in education alone are endless. But they do not stop there. The discrimination is replicated in all major facets of life for Israel’s more than 2 million Palestinian citizens through these conceptual and legal contortions over religion, citizenship and nationality.

None of this should be a surprise. It is exactly what you would expect in an apartheid state like Israel.

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Summer books: trade wars, billionaires and global warming

Summer books: trade wars, billionaires and global warming

Here are reviews of a few books that I could not ignore analysing this summer.

Michael Roberts

Let’s start with How to win a trade war by Soumaya Keynes and Chad Bown.  Keynes, an ancestor of the John Maynard, formerly wrote for the Economist and now for the Financial Times.  Chad Bown is an international trade economist at the American Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE).

This is a truly irritating and fallacious book. But it does tell you all you need to know about what the governments of the major Western capitalist economies want to do about China’s rapid rise in manufacturing and trade globally: namely to launch a trade war with sanctions and tariffs.

As Keynes put it in an interview with Keynesian guru, Paul Krugman, “the conceit of the book is that you, the reader, are really interested in fighting a trade war, right? And we are the two nerdy kind of reluctant guides saying, “Uh, if you really want to do it, then, you know, we’ll give you the evidence that you need.”  “After all, we (presumably, the West) is in some sort of trade war, and really China is the part that’s driving this.”  Yes, according to mainstream economic theory, international trade benefits all with economies of scale etc and cheaper and better goods, but “in a world where we’re not friends with everyone and we don’t trust everything”, that does not follow.  We need to find out “new, new ways of protecting ourself against China’s subsidies.”

Bown is particularly dedicated to adopting bans and other sanctions on Chinese exports and companies in this apparently necessary trade war. We must carry out “the really hard task at hand of fighting the real trade war that needs to be fought, which is dealing with these challenges with China… with our partners and allies.”  You can see that the book starts from the premiss that what’s good for Western capital is good for us all; and the ‘enemy’ is China.

Let’s deal quickly with the fallacies of this book’s arguments. First, is the decline in economic growth and manufacturing in the US and now Europe due to some ‘China shock’ caused by unfair trade practices adopted by an overproducing Chinese manufacturing sector?  No.  As Jason Furman, former chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers, argues, the so-called “China shock” is a myth. According to him, “85 to 95% of Americans benefit” from trade with China, and “China has been part of helping [the US economy] work, not hurting it work.” In other words, the narrative that China “stole” American jobs and wages is the exact opposite of reality.

Furman also points out that the majority of what the US imports from China isn’t consumer goods: “more than half of what we import is actually inputs into the manufacturing process itself.” In other words, Chinese imports make US manufacturing MORE competitive as it decreases their input costs. If you were to cut all Chinese imports, you’d cripple U.S. manufacturing as it would no longer be able to compete on price with anyone.  And that applies to Europe as well.

But this notion that China is somehow “stealing” Western jobs and prosperity has become the unquestioned premiss of Western governments and financial media, and in the assumptions of this book. The European leaders’ solution to the so-called China shock is to slap tariffs on Chinese imports, copying Trump’s tariff war.  But is China overproducing at unfair low prices for world markets or is America’s trade deficit really a result of the simple fact that the US buys more than it produces and covers the gap with imports? 

As for Europe, the shift in China’s trade balance with Europe has been truly dramatic.  The deficit has more or less doubled in the years since COVID.

But why has this deficit shot up? German Chancellor Merz says that China is unfairly keeping its currency undervalued. But there is little evidence to suggest any exchange-rate-driven price dumping. The unit exchange value of Chinese exports is on an upward trend and moves closely with those of Japan and South Korea. A large part of the Chinese export surge to Europe is accounted for by green energy goods, which are heavily in demand for Europe’s energy transition. Another large element are chemicals, the production of which has been hit in Europe by high gas prices.  European imports are thus not the result of China’s low valued yuan, but instead from the necessary demand for key products.

Moreover, China’s subsidies for industry are in no way outsized compared to the European Green Deal or Biden’s IRA.  The German car industry got comparable subsidies for reinvestment. But rather than being ploughed back into much needed new investment, these were paid out to shareholders in the form of dividends. In 2023 alone, as the Chinese EV avalanche was already upon them, Germany’s big three automakers, according to analysts at EY, paid out 31 billion euros in dividends.  

Overall, I have dealt with all these arguments against the ‘China shock’ in this post.   So I won’t go further on this. The real question that this book does not answer: is the solution for Europe and US manufacturers , or more important, for the majority of people in those two continents a trade war, as the authors assume?  I think not.

Inequality expert Gabriel Zucman has got a best seller out, called The need to tax billionaires. Zucman provides the reader with devastating facts about the inequality of wealth globally and its increased concentration in a handful of mega rich billionaires (and now even a trillionaire with Elon Musk).

Zucman shows that just 3000 households have 16% of the world’s total personal wealth and that share is accelerating.

Zucman argues that billionaires often pay a lower effective income tax rate than teachers or nurses because their wealth is tied up in companies and assets, which avoid income taxes unless sold. The billionaires hide much of their wealth in tax havens around the world to avoid paying tax. “This kind of global tax evasion has been one of the linchpins of rising inequality and growing government debt worldwide. It has also led many to lose hope in the very possibility of a fairer society, creating a breeding ground for the reactionary political movements that are thriving today.”

Zucman callsfor a coordinated global minimum tax requiring individuals with a net worth over $100 million to pay at least 2% of their wealth in taxes each year.   That would raise huge sums for governments to use on social needs and restore a fairer tax burden for all.

Zucman dismisses the cry that any wealth tax imposed by governments would actually lead to a loss tax revenue as the billionaires would all leave the country. He points out that if “all France’s billionaires were to flee to the Cayman Islands tomorrow, the loss of tax revenue to the country would be insignificant: around 0.03%.”  Zucman concludes that “it is time to finish what we started with income tax – a major advance for democracy – in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is time finally to bring billionaires, who have never really been subject to income tax, into the fold. Carrying this unfinished revolution to completion is imperative if we wish to live by our most fundamental principles of equality before the law.”

My main criticism of Zucman’s book is it that it proposes only trying to redistribute wealth and income through taxation.  The point really is: why does such inequality arise?  Why are there billionaires in the first place?  It is not due mainly to tax evasion or low taxes; it is to do with the structure of capitalist economies.  The underlying inequality is the concentration of corporate assets in just a small number of companies globally.  In an updated investigation, a Swiss technology team found that just 1318 transnational corporations control the assets of the world’s economy. (Superconnected companies are red, very connected companies are yellow. The size of the dot represents revenue).

In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 percent of the entire network.” Most were financial institutions. The main shareholders of such companies thus become billionaires.  It is not just a question of properly taxing the billionaires as Zucman proposes, but instead to establish public ownership of the dominant large companies globally.  That would end the world of billionaires and allow governments to plan investment and production for social needs, not the profits of billionaire shareholders.

Public ownership of the world largest companies?  Surely, that’s totally utopian given their power to control governments and with governments that support the capitalist system?  But then expecting to get governments to impose a 2% wealth tax, which might seem a more modest proposal, is just as utopian under the present system.

The climate and accelerating global warming is literally a burning issue as even the Global North is now experiencing extreme heat waves through this summer.  Average global temperatures compared to pre-industrial levels keep breaking new records.  Professor Lord Nicholas Stern is the most venerated climate economist and he has a new book out called The Growth Story of the 21st Century: The Economics and Opportunity of Climate Action

Stern presents a story of optimism that the global warming crisis can be resolved. Moreover, climate action and long-term sustainable growth are not conflicting strategies. His solutions? He advocates massive upfront green investment and international climate finance provided by a partnership between governments and private industry, along with carbon pricing, environmental taxation and cap-and-trade permit systems to make polluters pay.

In other words, these are all the mainstream economic policies that have been around since the Paris Agreement of 2015 to cap global warming  at 1.4-2.0C above pre-industrial levels.  And they have failed.  Fossil fuel production is not being phased out – on the contrary.  And funding for climate action has disappeared. As Brett Christophers has pointed out in his book, profitability for capital stands in the way of any real action on the climate. 

Instead of hoping that the big energy companies, the global banks and industrial combines will ‘see sense’ and invest in climate action as Stern advocates, the answer really lies in public ownership and planning, as economists Paul Cockshott, Alin Cottrell, and Jan Philip Dapprich explain in their book written many lost years ago.

Sunday, June 28, 2026

Guilty as Charged: How America and Israel Created the Iranian Nuclear Programme They Now Use as a Pretext for War

Guilty as Charged: How America and Israel Created the Iranian Nuclear Programme They Now Use as a Pretext for War

 



By Lim Tean

 

Lim Tean is the Secretary General of the People’s Alliance For Reform Singapore

Facts For Working People publishes this article for our readers interests and is not affiliated with the Alliance for Reform. on Facebook.

 

The Great Game

 

Ariel Sharon publicly called for IRAN’S VICTORY in 1982. Israel had 100 military advisers living in Tehran throughout the war. America supplied Iran with weapons-grade uranium. Now read what they say about Iran today — and ask yourself who the real rogue states are.

 

The Western narrative on Iran’s nuclear programme is built on a foundational lie — and the evidence to demolish it has been hiding in plain sight for decades. The United States and Israel, who present themselves today as the last guardians standing between a fanatical Iran and nuclear catastrophe, are in fact the two nations most responsible for Iran’s nuclear existence. 

 

They built it. They armed the state they now bomb. And the historical record convicts them on both counts.

 

Let the prosecution begin.

 

COUNT ONE: America Created Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Iran’s nuclear programme began under the Shah in 1957, after the United States and Iran agreed to a civilian nuclear cooperation arrangement known as the Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atoms, through Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace programme. This was no accident of history. According to archival documents, a non-aligned Iran was viewed as a cornerstone in a deterrence strategy against the Soviet Union, and Atoms for Peace served to solidify Iran’s allegiance to the West. Tehran was not given nuclear technology out of benevolence — it was given nuclear technology as a Cold War bribe.

 

In November 1967, the Tehran Research Reactor went critical, initially fuelled with 93% highly enriched uranium provided by the United States. Read that sentence again. Washington supplied Tehran with weapons-grade fuel. The beneficiaries of the Atoms for Peace programme included Israel, India, Pakistan — and Iran, then ruled by the US-backed Shah. The same nations America would later spend decades accusing of nuclear adventurism were all schooled in the nuclear arts by Washington itself.

 

This programme was actively supported by the major Western powers, and the United States, France, and Germany sought lucrative power reactor sales to Iran. Lucrative. The word is important. This was never purely strategic calculation — it was commerce dressed as security policy.

 

COUNT TWO: America and Germany Built Bushehr

The Bushehr nuclear power plant was the idea of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who wanted a national electrical grid powered by nuclear plants. In August 1974, the Shah declared: “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn… We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants.”

 

Washington did not object. Washington encouraged it. Preliminary agreements with Siemens KWU and Framatome for four nuclear power plants were signed. In 1975, construction of two reactors was started near Bushehr by Siemens KWU — modelled on Germany’s own Biblis B reactor. Some $3 billion was paid. Around 5,500 German nationals lived at the construction site. There had never been a German construction project abroad on that scale.

 

The Shah also sent dozens of Iranian students to MIT to study nuclear engineering in the mid-1970s, with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran concluding a formal agreement with MIT in 1975 to provide a specialised master’s programme to train Iranian nuclear engineers.

 

America was not merely permitting this — it was actively shaping Iran’s nuclear scientific class. The engineers who today run Iran’s nuclear installations were trained, in no small part, by the United States of America.

 

Then 1979 came. The Shah fell. Washington’s man was gone. And the entire programme America had constructed — the reactors it had blessed, the engineers it had trained, the fuel it had supplied — suddenly became an existential threat. Nothing about Iran’s physical nuclear infrastructure had changed. What changed was the flag flying over Tehran.

 

This is not nonproliferation policy. This is geopolitics with a moral mask.

 

COUNT THREE: Israel Armed Khomeini’s Iran

Now we arrive at the most spectacular hypocrisy in modern Middle Eastern history.

 

Israel supported Iran throughout the Iran-Iraq War to provide a counterweight to Iraq, to re-establish influence in Iran lost with the overthrow of the Shah, and to create business for the Israeli weapons industry. Israel sold Iran $75 million worth of arms in Operation Seashell in 1981, including antitank guns, TOW missiles, and spare parts for tank and aircraft engines. 

 

Arms sales totalled an estimated $500 million from 1981 to 1983. Other experts placed the true figure at more than $500 million per year, with internal US government reports suggesting total Israeli arms sales to Iran approached $2 billion annually in the early 1980s.

 

This was not marginal, deniable activity. There were never less than around one hundred Israeli advisers and technicians in Iran at any time throughout the war, living in a carefully guarded camp just north of Tehran, where they remained even after the ceasefire. While Iranian leaders called for Israel’s destruction at Friday prayers, Israeli military personnel were embedded in the Islamic Republic’s war machine.

 

And what did Israel say about this arrangement? Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post in May 1982: “Iraq is Israel’s enemy and we hope that diplomatic relations between us and Iran will be renewed as in the past.” Four months later, he told a Paris press conference: “Israel has a vital interest in the continuing of the war in the Persian Gulf, and in Iran’s victory.”

 

Israel’s most celebrated military strategist — the man later to become Prime Minister — was publicly calling for Iran’s victory and hoping for renewed diplomatic relations with the Khomeini government. He was not some rogue voice. Israel’s participation in the arms transfers was approved by Prime Minister Shimon Peres. This was state policy, authorised at the highest level.

 

COUNT FOUR: Washington Covered for Israel While Publicly Blockading Iran

By 1982, it was evident to the US State Department that Israel was routinely selling American-made military material to Iran without Washington’s case-by-case consent, as was part of the original agreement between Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Secretary of State Alexander Haig. The Reagan administration’s response? It replenished Israel’s weapons stockpile — even as American weapons were visibly flowing to Tehran.

 

This wilful ignoring of Israel’s arms sales occurred despite the fact that the Reagan administration began in 1983 an aggressive public campaign, known as Operation Staunch, to stop worldwide weapons sales to Iran.

 

Operation Staunch — publicly strangling Iran’s arms supply while privately allowing Israel to sustain it. The cynicism is breathtaking.

 

THE VERDICT: Power, Not Principle

The prosecution rests. Let us state plainly what the evidence establishes:

America launched Iran’s nuclear programme in 1957. America supplied it with highly enriched uranium. America trained its nuclear engineers at MIT. America and Germany built the Bushehr reactor to near-completion. Israel armed the Islamic Republic throughout an eight-year war, with hundreds of its own personnel embedded in Tehran, while its Defence Minister publicly called for Iran’s victory.

 

Then — the moment Iran ceased to serve Western and Israeli strategic interests — the same programme became an abomination against civilisation. The same nuclear infrastructure became proof of genocidal intent. The same nation they had armed, trained, and enriched became the supreme threat to regional order.

 

What changed was not Iran. What changed was the calculus of domination.

Today, as Israel prosecutes a war that its own strategic class has long sought — the destruction not of Iran’s weapons but of Iran as a functional state, a war aimed at cementing Israeli military supremacy from the Nile to the Euphrates — we are asked to accept the framing that this is about nonproliferation. That this is about protecting the world from nuclear catastrophe.

 

It is not. It never was.

 

The rules-based international order has always been a legitimacy laundering operation — a mechanism by which the powerful dress their interests in universal principle. The history of Iran’s nuclear programme is among the most complete indictments of that system ever assembled. It was built by the West when Iran was useful, condemned by the West when Iran became independent, and is now being bombed by the West in service of a regional hegemony project its architects dare not name openly.

 

The architects of Iran’s nuclear existence are now its executioners. History will record the rank hypocrisy. When you hear Trump declare repeatedly that Iran will never have nuclear weapons, bring to his attention the facts I have set out in this post and laugh at him in his face!  

 

Lim Tean is the Secretary General of the People’s Alliance For Reform Singapore