Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Foreign investors becoming “nervous Nellies”: Carlyle Thayer on Vietnam’s deepening political turmoil

In an exclusive interview with TNT, Emeritus Professor Carlyle Thayer of The University of New South Wales discussed Vietnam's anti-corruption efforts, their effects on domestic politics, economy, foreign investment potential, and the nation's global image.

Published 1 May 2024
– By Sukanya Saha
Left: Former President Võ Văn Thưởng during a visit to Japan. Right: Current President Võ Thị Ánh Xuân at the Presidential Palace in Hanoi.
7 minute read

Vietnam’s previously stable one-party Communist regime has been known for its consistency. However, President Võ Văn Thưởng’s sudden resignation on March 20, merely a year into his tenure, making him the shortest-serving president in the nation’s Communist history, indicates a growing tumult in Hanoi’s political landscape.

For weeks, several experts had been forecasting his downfall. Now, Thưởng has joined the ranks as the second president to step down within the span of two years amid a sweeping anti-corruption campaign that has ousted numerous high-ranking politicians in the Southeast Asian country.

During an interview exclusively with The Nordic Times, Carlyle Thayer, Emeritus Professor of Politics at The University of New South Wales, discussed Vietnam’s anti-corruption drive, its impact on internal politics, economic outlook, the potential for foreign investment, and the country’s image on the global stage.

Foreign investors becoming ‘nervous Nellies’

Vietnam’s political instability coincides with a period of heightened foreign investment, fuelled by a global trend among manufacturers seeking to reduce reliance on China amid increasing tensions between Washington and Beijing. Investors are growing increasingly anxious as the anti-corruption campaign extends to private enterprises, causing delays and uncertainties in government approvals for projects and licenses. Officials are hesitant to grant approvals due to concerns about potential corruption investigations.

Deliberating on whether Vietnam’s political instability would concern its foreign investors, Thayer said, “Beijing’s economy is in the doldrums and Vietnam heavily relies on the Chinese market. Vietnam wants science and technology to be the driver.

“They want innovation, clean energy transition, protected supply chains, help the semiconductor industry, and more. They want to modernise. So, to do that, they are going to have to encourage investment and make decisions. They already have had at least 50 US businesses visit the largest US trade mission.

“But investors are understandably apprehensive about potential shifts in leadership. And the closer you get to a party congress, you see a slowdown in the process of decision-making and approvals. However, it will be up to Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính and his cabinet to drive progress.

“Vietnam, being risk-averse, will avoid unnerving investors who might hastily withdraw their support. The last thing they want the investors to become is nervous Nellies and scare the horses. They need foreign investment, including from China. It is crucial for Vietnam’s economic stability and they are not trying to move to the West only.

“Therefore, Vietnam has a pragmatic approach that involves constant self-reflection to drive economic progress and maintain political stability. It recently expressed interest in establishing trade offices in five major Chinese cities and aims to collaborate with India, particularly in high-tech sectors.”

Impact on domestic politics

On March 20, the Vietnamese Communist Party acknowledged the resignation of President Võ Văn Thưởng, citing “shortcomings”, according to a government statement. The statement specified that Thưởng, who was widely perceived as having a close relationship with the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Nguyễn Phú, Vietnam’s most influential figure and the main architect of the anti-corruption drive, had breached party regulations, and these “shortcomings” had led to adverse public perceptions, tarnishing the reputation of both the party and the State, as well as his own personal standing.

Discussing how Thưởng’s sudden resignation could impact Vietnam’s domestic politics and its image on the global stage, the professor opined, “Well, Thưởng has resigned and there are 20 months left in his term of office, actually a bit more, till May of 2026. So, at the moment, Vietnam has appointed Vice President Võ Thị Ánh Xuân to replace him. But she is not a member of the so-called four pillars of the Vietnamese leadership and one has to be a permanent member of the political bureau.

“So, the Central Committee must decide who will fill the president’s term. Earlier, the party secretary general assumed the presidency after a president’s death but relinquished it upon the term’s end. But it’s unlikely the current Secretary General (Nguyễn Phú Trọng) will do the same due to age and health concerns.

“Therefore, they have two options: Appointing a caretaker or someone to serve the term without major shifts in foreign or economic policy. But despite the transition period, I expect Vietnamese politics to remain stable, with leadership changes every five years, with a significant turnover, organised by age groups and regional representation.

“Of course, navigating their internal procedures can be cumbersome. Moreover, regardless of their actions, the outgoing leadership will review candidates. But once we get this interim decision made, it’s a steady state.”

Selection of future leaders

Transitioning power is a complex task in any nation, and Vietnam is no different. Following the conclusion of the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam, a new leadership team was selected to guide the country for the next five years. However, rather than rejuvenating national leadership to confront looming strategic, human security, and economic challenges, the party failed to deliver on its pledge for a generational change with several high-profile dismisses and prosecutions within the party.

Highlighting why there has been no significant change in the party’s internal dynamics, particularly regarding the selection of future leaders, Thayer explained, “With around 180 full voting members alongside alternatives, vacancies still exist within the central committee, primarily due to retirements. Vietnam systematically appoints people by age groups. It’s like an escalator. You have under 50, 50 to 60, 60 to 65.

“So, every five years, a new group, comprising provincial representatives, military, public security, and party officials, ascends to form the core of leadership, although gender representation remains low and there is only 10-14 per cent of women. Nevertheless, apart from occasional exceptions, structural composition, and sectoral representation ensure stability, as we have seen in regular party congresses since 1976. Therefore, the structural makeup and sectoral representation are ingrained, like DNA.”

He further suggested that Vietnam’s default stance leans heavily towards stability. Therefore, there are rarely any radical shifts, as the provinces, although under the same party umbrella, function independently. This setup provides a stabilising effect on the overall system. Since the reunification in 1976, party congresses have occurred regularly every five years.

“I’ve conducted analyses on turnover by age group and sector that show a remarkable level of stability. While there may be some fluctuations, the system’s foundation remains robust,” he added.

Who will be Thưởng’s successor?

The President’s role is largely ceremonial but ranks among the top four political positions in Vietnam. Recent shifts in leadership within the single-party system have all been associated with the extensive “blazing furnace” antigraft campaign, aimed at eradicating pervasive corruption but also suspected of being used for internal political struggles.

When former President Nguyễn Xuân Phúc resigned last year following allegations of “violations and wrongdoing” by officials under his jurisdiction, it took lawmakers a month and a half to appoint Thưởng as his successor. Therefore, the upcoming elections for a new president in Vietnam carry significant implications for the country’s political stability.

Underscoring the importance of the forthcoming elections in the Southeast Asian nation, the professor stated, “To host a head of state or government, you need a president who sits at the top political body, granting some authority but not independent policymaking power. The president essentially acts as the perfect salesman for what’s already been agreed collectively.

“Therefore, Vietnam must promptly fill this role to engage in meetings and summits in the region effectively as it significantly elevated its partnerships last year, aligning with the US, Japan, and Australia as comprehensive strategic partners, followed by South Korea the year before. This places them alongside China, Russia, and India, long-standing traditional allies and partners of Vietnam.”

Speaking of the Communist Party’s criteria for selecting Thưởng’s successor, Thayer said, “It will heavily influence Vietnam’s trajectory leading up to the 2026 National Congress. Typically, the Secretary General oversees the nomination process for a successor, by conducting straw polls to gauge support within the central committee. And now this process has been expedited due to Thưởng’s resignation, likely resulting in a smooth transition to the 14th Congress in early 2026.”

Is Vietnam losing its ‘China plus one’ tag?

Vietnam’s proactive approach in encouraging both Chinese and international companies to relocate operations to its territory and diversify their investments has played a significant role in its successful implementation of the “China plus one” strategy.

However, some experts feel that the government must now establish a clear and transparent legal framework to sustain its endeavours in combating corruption across both public and private domains. Otherwise, the lustre that the Southeast Asian nation has gained as being “China’s plus one” may fade away before long.

Mulling over the possibility of Vietnam losing its “China Plus One” status, Thayer remarked, “Well, the whole ‘China Plus One’ concept hinges on whether Donald Trump comes back after the November elections (in the US). It refers to businesses, both foreign and Chinese, moving some operations to Vietnam to avoid potential US sanctions or tariffs on Chinese goods. But it’s a tricky situation.

“But despite these challenges, I don’t think it could lose its ‘China plus one’ status. In fact, Vietnam’s status as a non-market economy could change soon, potentially leading to more favourable trade terms with the US.”

Sukanya Saha is a contributing editor at The Nordic Times. Based in New Delhi, she is an accomplished journalist who has previously worked with several major Indian media outlets such as NDTV, India Today, IANS, and Jagran English. Currently, she is associated with Hindustan Times. In 2022, she topped the BRICS International Journalism Programme from India. Committed to understanding the complex dynamics that shape our world, Sukanya's passions range from world politics to science and space exploration.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

A war without end – financed by you

Peace is not a goal – it's a threat to business. European taxpayers are forced to feed the military-industrial complex, while war profiteers convert blood into money.

Published 27 June 2025
– By Jenny Piper
Through decisions made by those in power, Swedish taxpayers will continue to finance the war in Ukraine.
2 minute read

The Washington Post reported yesterday, citing a high-ranking source within the Ukrainian presidential office, that Ukraine’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse – despite Western support.

A positive economic impact, previously predicted for mid-2025 based on a ceasefire, is no longer being considered. Instead, efforts are focused on keeping the country afloat.

The fact that the Ukrainian economy hasn’t completely collapsed yet is solely due to extensive Western support. According to anonymous officials and analysts interviewed by the newspaper, there is a possibility that such support will not be sufficient for further development.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, together with the leaders of Denmark, Finland, and Norway, has promised continued support for their top priority – Ukraine. With the help of our tax money, they can likely keep the country afloat through the end of the year, allowing the corrupt regime in Kiev to drain the last of our resources.

Everything is being done to prevent the war from ending, and with substantial help from both mass media and military officials, they ensure the population stays on board. A recent example is Swedish Supreme Commander Michael Claesson’s statement to Dagens Industri (a Swedish business newspaper), where he sees risks and doesn’t rule out that Russia might choose to test NATO’s Article 5 on Swedish territory – now that they feel threatened by NATO’s military buildup.

When Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov spoke to reporters yesterday, he said that the fabricated Russian threat is being used to pressure Western taxpayers for money.

– European taxpayers will spend their money to defuse some threat that they say comes from our country, but it is nothing but an ephemeral threat. This is the technique used to continue pumping out money and supplying Ukraine with weapons.

It was likely no coincidence that the Swedish Armed Forces yesterday showcased their new anti-drone system – with equipment from Swedish defense companies Saab and Bofors, among others – specifically on Gotland, Sweden’s largest island, during the Almedalen Week political forum where many representatives of the military-industrial complex are present.

All Jenny Piper's articles can be found on her blog.

Trump’s ambition to end forever wars appears at a standstill

The escalation in the Middle East

The US "anti-war" president, recently recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize, can forget that thought after last night's war of aggression.

Published 22 June 2025
– By Jenny Piper
Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have long been close - a friendship that looks to have cost him the "America First" election promise.
3 minute read

It is ironic that yesterday the Pakistani government formally recommended US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his mediation efforts to end the latest military conflict between Islamabad and New Delhi. Considering that Trump ordered attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan just a few hours later, he can definitely forget about receiving that award. That said, Obama did receive the Peace Prize despite the increase in US military interventions around the world during his time in the White House, so anything is possible.

Trump thus did the dirty work for Israel, which started the problem, and the US will take the blame for the consequences. Smart.

After the attacks, Trump warned Iran that if they do not make peace, more and harsher attacks will follow. Iran, for its part, has already announced that it will not bow down.

Trump has been criticized for his decision to actively enter the war by other US congressmen, some of whom say that the attacks on Iran are grounds for impeaching Trump.

Iran has accused the US of violating international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with its nighttime attacks on important nuclear facilities, while assuring the public that no radioactive contamination has been detected at the sites attacked.

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has condemned the US air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a serious violation of international law and writes on X that Tehran reserves all options to respond in accordance with its right to self-defense.

“The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people”.

Iran is now demanding that the UN Security Council hold an emergency meeting, but everyone already knows that this is just a show, as both the US and Israel have carte blanche in this toothless organization.

At the same time, other forces may wake up when third parties allied with Iran want to get involved. Although major powers such as Russia, North Korea, and China, together with neighboring countries in the Middle East, have so far taken a wait-and-see position because Iran has not wanted support, a spokesman for Yemen’s Houthis has already warned that if the US gets involved, the group will attack their warships in the Red Sea.

Another unpleasant thought is the many dormant “cells” around the world that may now be activated, with consequences for ordinary people as well. So all those who are now praising Trump’s “bravery” may find themselves eating their words if they start thinking more long term.

Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of Southeast Norway, sums it up well in a post on X, where he stated that US President Donald Trump has once again dragged the country into a conflict in the Middle East.

“Bush ran on a peace platform against nation-building, Obama promised ‘change’, Biden would ‘bring the adults back’, and Trump would get the US out of the forever wars in the Middle East. They all started wars… It does not matter who you vote for, when they do not work for you”.

But there is at least one winner here: the arms industry, whose shares will once again rise when the stock market opens.

 

Jenny Piper

All Jenny Piper's articles can be found on her blog.

How fanaticism fuels America’s Christian supporters of Israel

A major factor behind America's abnormal subservience to Israel is the Zionist evangelical movement, whose influence has been strengthened by Trump's return to the White House.

Published 21 June 2025
– By Editorial Staff
The right-wing Christian movement in the United States is intimately linked to unlimited support for Israel.
8 minute read

The relationship between Christian Europe and Judaism has varied and been complex over the centuries. It has often been marked by strong hostility, with Jews not only being regarded as having rejected Jesus as the true Messiah, but also often accused of being responsible for his crucifixion through the Jewish party and the sect of the Pharisees.

The Jewish diaspora was also generally viewed with great suspicion and was often forced to live in special quarters or areas so that the authorities could control them. Financial activities such as money lending and gold trading also led to them being associated with usury, which was greatly despised in traditional Christian society.

During the Middle Ages, relations between Christians and Jews deteriorated further in many places. In a number of European countries, Jewish residents were expelled, among other things on charges of causing disease outbreaks, poisoning wells, or ritually murdering Christian children. In several cases, there were also outright pogroms in which Jews were physically driven out or executed.

The Pope demanded separation, Luther advocated expulsion

Over the centuries, Jews continued to be regarded as an undesirable group in many places. In 1555, for example, Pope Paul IV declared that they must live separately from Christians, wear symbols that clearly showed which group they belonged to, and were even forbidden from selling anything other than food and second-hand clothes.

In his now highly controversial work The Jews and Their Lies, the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, went even further, claiming that the Jews were a godless people “who seek to destroy the foundation of our faith” and who, from childhood, are taught to harbor a “poisonous hatred of the goyim” (non-Jews).

Luther therefore advocated either expelling the Jews or forcing them into labor, while burning down their synagogues and schools.

Martin Luther and Pope Paul IV were both strongly critical of Judaism. Montage. Painting: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Jacopino Conte

The contrast in attitude toward the Jewish diaspora between Martin Luther and Paul IV is particularly striking when compared to modern evangelical Christian Zionists, who have their strongest foothold in the US but are also reflected in Nordic Pentecostal movements.

Scofield and the Jews as the chosen people

During the 19th century, a new Christian movement began to emerge in the US and Britain, inspired by biblical prophecies about the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, which was also linked to the return of Jesus to Earth. Some evangelical groups soon began to regard the re-establishment of Israel as a necessary and divine plan.

Similar ideas had been put forward before, but now they would have a broad impact. In 1909, the American theologian and preacher Cyrus Ingerson Scofield wrote a study and reference Bible, the so-called Scofield Bible, which soon became widely read in the United States. It focused heavily on proclaiming that every good Christian must also support Israel and the Jewish people – and that anti-Semitism was to be considered a particularly grave sin.

Scofield’s Bible has had a huge influence on the Christian movement in the United States. Montage. Photo: Geogozz/CC BY-SA 4.0, Unknown

A man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God“, is one of the statements made in the writings, where biblical texts are interpreted very literally. It is repeatedly emphasized that the return of the Jews to Jerusalem is a central part of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.

It is also proclaimed that Israel will play a decisive role in the apocalyptic events of the end times, which, according to evangelicals, will precede Jesus’ return to earth, and that God’s prophecies in the Old Testament are about the Jews – not about Christians.

As a rule, the book is interpreted as saying that it is the moral and spiritual duty of every Christian to support Israel at all costs. According to this interpretation, if this is not done, the biblical prophecies will not be fulfilled and Christians themselves will not receive God’s salvation and blessing.

God has promised to bless those who bless the Jews. I believe, as an Evangelical Christian, that the Jewish return to their current homeland in the twentieth century was, and is, a fulfillment of biblical prophecy”, explains prominent evangelical leader Richard Land, for example, explaining his conviction.

The influence of the Scofield Bible on evangelical movements has contributed to what is often described as almost unconditional support for Israel – something that has attracted renewed attention in the wake of international criticism of Israel for its hardline policy in Gaza, which has included accusations of genocide and led to calls for the country’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Israel supporters demonstrate in New York. Photo: shavnya.com/Unsplash

Evangelical Christians are a big deal in the US, making up over 25% of the population, and they’ve been seen as pretty influential in politics for a long time.

AIPAC finances evangelical candidates

As early as the first half of the 20th century, Christian Zionists supported Jewish immigration to Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel, and their support has continued ever since. Today, Israel is considered an important “alliance partner” – not only for geopolitical reasons, but also for theological ones. These voices are considered by most analysts to be crucial in pushing through the extensive US support for Israel.

The US has also long had an influential Jewish diaspora with a lobby that, for obvious reasons, has appreciated the support of evangelicals. In many cases, large sums of money have been donated to finance the election campaigns of Christian supporters of Israel and to ensure that the US legislative assemblies are dominated by allies of Israel.

AIPAC, together with the ADL, is perhaps the best-known Jewish lobby organization in the US, and after the last election, it declared with satisfaction that almost all of “its” candidates had won their respective elections – while also managing to “stop” a number of Israel-critical challengers.

Both during Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Christian Zionist influence on American politics intensified – but also during Donald Trump’s first term, when the disputed city of Jerusalem was recognised as the capital of Israel and the US embassy was moved there.

Apocalyptic motives

Christian Zionists are mainly found within the Republican Party, where some examples of prominent evangelical-oriented leaders include Trump’s former vice president Mike Pence, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Trump’s former vice president Mike Pence is Christian and a very strong supporter of Israel. Photo: US Embassy in Jerusalem/CC BY 2.0

James Lankford, John Thune, Tim Scott, Joni Ernst, and Josh Hawley are some other names belonging to the same movement and representing the same party. Its dominance has contributed to the Republicans pursuing an even more pro-Israel line than their competitors in the Democratic Party – although they too profess to see Israel as an indispensable ally.

Analysts often point out that Christian Zionists’ support for Israel is more ideological than pragmatic, and that they are driven by apocalyptic motives rather than strategic considerations. The movement has also long been accused of exacerbating conflicts in the Middle East, where it has tended to advocate escalation rather than peace talks with regional power Iran.

Here, too, the view is often based on biblical interpretations, where the conflicts in the Middle East are viewed through an apocalyptic lens. Reference is made above all to the Book of Revelation and its prophecies of a “final battle” in which Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that are ultimately defeated. Sometimes Iran, for example, is identified as part of the armies of “Gog and Magog” that will attack Israel – but also be destroyed by fire from the sky.

In a similar vein, Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians is generally seen as part of God’s will, as the Jews are the chosen people who have the right to reclaim the territory promised to them and partially occupied thousands of years ago.

Christian Zionists often identify Iran as part of the armies of “Gog and Magog.” Montage. Painting: unknown (early 13th century), photo: Khamenei.ir

When it comes to US foreign and security policy, evangelicals stand almost exclusively on Israel’s side, and in international forums there is also an agreement to always stand behind their allies and block any attempts at sanctions or condemnation from, for example, the UN.

Family of threatened chief prosecutor

There are many examples of the Christian right’s unconditional support for Israel. When it was first reported that the International Criminal Court was considering issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 12 Republican senators – including Ted Cruz and incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio – responded by declaring that such an order would have direct consequences for the court’s chief prosecutor, his employees, and their family members.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are two prominent Christian Zionists. Montage. Photo: U.S. Senate Photographic Studio, Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0

Target Israel and we will target you”, they threatened, promising “strong sanctions” against the court’s employees and associates, as well as to “bar you and your families from the United States”.

You have been warned”, the Republicans declared, adding that the US would withdraw all support for the ICC if the court took action against Israel.

Similarly, prominent evangelicals have repeatedly claimed that the UN and its various bodies are “anti-Israel” or even “anti-Semitic” when Israeli crimes have been condemned, and senators such as Ted Cruz have declared that the US must leave the organization entirely if Israel is expelled.

Although there are a few dissenting voices, there is also much to suggest that the US under Donald Trump’s administration will pursue a more pro-Israel policy than has been the case under the Biden administration.

“No one is safe from their wrath”

Critics argue that it is very difficult in practice for US politicians to advocate a line where the US puts its own national interests ahead of Israel’s, given the strong influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which devotes considerable resources to fighting candidates who are not perceived as sufficiently loyal to Israel.

– No one is safe from their wrath, explains left-wing figure Connor Farrell.

To ensure that politicians truly promote Israel’s interests on all issues, it has emerged, for example, that all Republican members of Congress have a personal lobbyist from AIPAC with whom they are in close contact and who influences how they vote on various issues. However, this is something that politicians generally prefer not to tell voters, according to libertarian Congressman Thomas Massie.

–It doesn’t benefit anybody. Why would they want to tell their constituents that they’ve basically got a buddy system with somebody who’s representing a foreign country? It doesn’t benefit the congressman for people to know that. So they’re not going to tell you that, says Massie.

The myth of Iran’s nuclear weapons

The escalation in the Middle East

For over 40 years, Israeli and US leaders have repeatedly sounded the alarm about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat, without ever producing a single piece of credible evidence. These lies have not only misled the public, they have also paved the way for repressive sanctions, assassinations, and a military intervention that is now very close to escalating into a catastrophic major war.

Published 19 June 2025
– By Editorial Staff
For more than 40 years, the world has been threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons – at least if Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies are to be believed.
10 minute read

The Bush administration’s lies about Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons of mass destruction were used as a pretext to invade Iraq – a war project estimated to have cost between 500,000 and one million lives. In hindsight, it turned out that no such weapons existed – they were simply lies to force through a desired regime change and assert power over the region.

Today, the invasion of Iraq is considered one of the worst betrayals by Western leaders in modern times and is often cited as a textbook example of how those in power will not shy away from manipulating their own citizens or the rest of the world to get their way. Although the case of Iraq is extreme in terms of suffering and scale, the approach is by no means unique.

Forty-one years ago, during the Cold War, the British defense magazine Jane’s Defense Weekly sounded the alarm with an unexpected report. “Iran is engaged in the production of an atomic bomb, likely to be ready within two years”, it claimed. The same claims were trumpeted by the Israeli media and US Senator Alan Cranston, who insisted that Iran was about seven years away from being able to manufacture its own nuclear weapons.

However, there was never any real basis for these claims, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also dismissed the alarm as unfounded. In retrospect, it was also clear that the statements were politically motivated scare tactics rather than serious predictions. Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons, either in the 1980s or later.

The fact that the alarms about Iran’s supposedly imminent nuclear threat had no grounding in reality mattered little. The steady stream of similar pronouncements continued to pour out from high-ranking Israeli and American officials.

For more than 40 years, Israeli and American leaders have profited from alarmist claims about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat. Photo: facsimile/X

All predictions were wrong

Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in the early and mid-1990s, when he was a member of parliament, that Iran could be only a few years away from acquiring nuclear weapons and demanded decisive action. During the same period, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres claimed that Iran would have a nuclear warhead by 1999, and in the US, a report by the House of Representatives’ Republican Research Committee claimed that Iran was “98 percent certain” to already have all the components needed to build “two or three operational nuclear weapons”.

At around the same time, under President George H.W. Bush, the CIA assessed that Iran had all the components needed for a couple of bombs, and predicted that Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2000 – a forecast that was later postponed to 2003.

These forecasts were also completely divorced from reality. The key was to portray the Iranian regime as a global threat that must be fought – and crushed with military force if necessary. This has continued, with constant alarmist and propagandistic warnings rather than serious and objective analysis. In 1995, for example, the New York Times reported that high-ranking US and Israeli officials warned that Iran would acquire a nuclear bomb by 2000.

“Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought”, the newspaper trumpeted, citing information from US and Israeli officials, and it was claimed that Iran’s atomic bomb was “at the top of the list” of dangers for the coming decade.

The warnings about Iranian nuclear bombs year after year after year have been likened to climate alarmists’ recurring warnings about global warming. Photo: facsimile/New York Times

Not yet – but soon?

When these deadlines passed without anything actually happening, the timeframes were pushed forward. In 1997, new estimates suggested that the Iranian bomb would not be ready until around 2007–2009.

During the 2000s, the warning signals and doomsday messages continued to echo. In 2005, Israel’s defense minister (Shaul Mofaz) stated that Iran would pass a “point of no return” in its nuclear weapons program within two years – which placed the critical date around 2007. In 2007, the Israeli intelligence service Mossad claimed that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability by 2009.

A 2009 forecast was even more alarming, claiming that Iran would be “nuclear armed” within a year. At the same time, more and more analysts began to question the credibility of the timelines and question why the forecasts were constantly being pushed forward, and why the new estimates should be more credible than the incorrect ones that had been made previously.

Despite the 2015 international nuclear agreement, leaders in Israel and the US continued to warn of Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. In September 2012, Netanyahu made a high-profile appearance at the UN General Assembly: he held up a sketch of a bomb and drew a red line with a red pen at 90 percent enrichment, warning that Iran would reach this final stage toward a bomb by spring or summer 2013 unless it was stopped.

In 2015, Netanyahu addressed the US Congress and criticized the new nuclear agreement, saying: “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb”.

In August 2021, it was time once again for Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz to sound the alarm that Iran was only “about 10 weeks away” from obtaining enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear warhead.

Powerful interests want to see Iran burn

This, it should be emphasized, is only a small selection of all the statements and warnings about alleged threats that have never materialized. Over the past four decades, both American and Israeli leaders have had an even stronger incentive to portray Iran’s nuclear program as an urgent, global threat. First, the threat creates a political and strategic basis for justifying massive military support for Israel and permanent US military operations in the region.

Every warning about “imminent” nuclear weapons provides justification for congressional decisions on increased defense spending, arms exports, and a military presence in the Gulf region, which benefits arms manufacturers and maintains a powerful US presence in the oil-rich region.

Furthermore, the threatening rhetoric also strengthens Israel’s demands for international support against Tehran, which consolidates the country’s position of power in the region and legitimizes “preventive” military operations against Iran. By constantly repeating that “we only have weeks or months left”, it has been possible to maintain a permanent high-risk situation that facilitates quick decisions on sanctions or military threats whenever political leaders want to take a harder line against Iran.

At the same time, political financing in the US has also played a decisive role. Many members of Congress receive large contributions from pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC, which consistently advocate a tough line against Iran to protect Israel’s security and interests. The Israel lobby’s ads in US election campaigns often portray any negotiations with Tehran as a moral failure, which has pushed US foreign policy in an extremely pro-Israel and neoconservative direction.

Similarly, Christian groups in the US, especially evangelicals, have long viewed Israel’s continued existence as a religious duty, whereby “those who bless Israel shall be blessed themselves” – and constitute a significant voter base that demands a tough confrontation with Iran. For these groups, a potential major war is not only a geopolitical possibility but also a step in prophetic eschatological patterns.

All in all, there are several influential groups that, for economic, geopolitical, or religious reasons, have an interest in keeping Iran’s “imminent” nuclear threat alive – even though none of the predictions have ever come true and there is no indication that they have ever been close to doing so.

What is Trump basing his decisions on?

Many had hoped that things would be different with Donald Trump, given his claims that he would be the one to “end all wars”.

– My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier, he has confidently declared.

In reality, however, a different picture emerges, with Trump choosing to completely ignore the assessment of his own intelligence chief when the latter states that there is no indication that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

– Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003, DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard recently stated, referring to the intelligence community’s collective assessment.

– I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one (nuclear weapon), Trump stated, when journalists asked him why he was ignoring the assessments of his own experts and advisors.

The fact that IAEA chief Rafel Grossi also confirms that there is no evidence “of a systematic effort (by Iran) to move toward a nuclear weapon” does not seem to matter to the US’s top leaders either. Trump has, by all accounts, decided to follow Netanyahu’s war line – despite the fact that it has been proven false for decades.

A betrayal of the movement

Trump’s popularity has been largely built on promises to end expensive, protracted, and globalist wars. Now, the capricious president is dismissing his promises with vague neoconservative arguments that the US cannot become “great” as long as Iran has or could obtain nuclear weapons, and that this should therefore be the top priority for all American patriots.

During his previous term, Trump was heavily criticized for failing to deliver on his campaign promises. Many analysts explained this by saying that they were blocked by political opponents, but other critics also pointed out early on that he chose to surround himself with advisors with questionable agendas that were directly harmful to the US, such as his ultra-Zionist son-in-law Jared Kushner and the neoconservative hawk John Bolton.

This time, it would be different. Now, the administration would be made up of reliable and stable people who put the US first and prioritized what was good for the American people not powerful special interests or foreign regimes.

That does not seem to have been the case. When it comes to Iran and the Middle East, the Americans and the world have, on the contrary, got a president in Trump who in practice may be even more belligerent than several of his despised predecessors. In recent days, his feed has been filled with warmongering neoconservative rhetoric and demands for Iranian submission.

“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he thunders in a post on Truth Social, among other things.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin”, he threatens in another.

“AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”, he proclaims in a third.

Trump rants about Iranian nuclear weapons. Photo: facsimile/Truth Social

Who makes the decisions?

Trump has certainly long had an eccentric public persona, but even many of his own supporters on social media are wondering what is really going on. Wasn’t Joe Biden the crazy president who was dragging the US into war and misery – not Trump?

Others cannot understand why the US president continues to shout about Iranian nuclear weapons when all relevant experts have already stated that there is no evidence whatsoever that such a threat is imminent. Where did he actually get his information from, how does he make his assessments, and why are they so irrational? These are the questions being asked. No answers seem to be forthcoming, except that the US is sticking to its line that Israel’s wishes take precedence over everything else.

Therefore, it does not matter to Trump that it is Israel – not Iran – that has illegally and in the utmost secrecy acquired a large number of nuclear weapons and used them to press for US military support or deter hostile neighbors in conflicts.

There is widespread concern among Trump’s voter base that, despite all his promises of peace, Trump once again appears to be throwing the US into a major war based on lies and disinformation – exactly as was the case with the invasion following the fabricated chemical weapons allegations in Iraq in 2003. Many Americans are resigned to the fact that this is not at all what they voted for.

Opponents of US involvement in Israel’s war against Iran also point out that those who are most vocal in calling for another US war are power brokers who do not actually support Trump or the MAGA movement, but see the war as an opportunity to split or crush the movement that has built up around him.

The coming days and weeks will not only define Trump’s political legacy, but the future of the entire Middle East. Perhaps even the world’s.

A selection of warnings about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat:

1984 – Jane’s Defense Weekly: Iran may have nuclear weapons within two years.
1992 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to having a bomb by 1999.
1993 – Yitzhak Rabin: Iran is building nuclear weapons, the world must act.
1995 – US government: Iran's nuclear weapons plans must be stopped
1998 – Madeleine Albright: Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
2000 – Bill Clinton: Law against support for Iran's weapons program.
2002 – George W. Bush: Iran threatens with nuclear weapons plans.
2004 – U.S. National Intelligence Estimate: Iran probably moving toward nuclear weapons.
2005 – Ariel Sharon: Iran close to technical solution for bomb.
2006 – George W. Bush: Iran's nuclear plans threaten peace.
2007 – US intelligence: Iran paused its weapons program in 2003 but is rebuilding capacity.
2008 – Ehud Olmert: Iran close to irreversible nuclear weapons point.
2009 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran three to five years from bomb.
2010 – Barack Obama: Iran's nuclear program a major threat.
2011 – Leon Panetta: Iran could have a bomb within a year.
2012 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to the “red line” for nuclear weapons.
2013 – Moshe Ya’alon: Iran very close to the nuclear threshold.
2014 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2015 – Benjamin Netanyahu: JCPOA (nuclear agreement with Iran) paves the way for Iran's bomb.
2017 – Donald Trump: Iran could quickly obtain nuclear weapons.
2018 – Mike Pompeo: Iran is seeking nuclear weapons despite JCPOA.
2019 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to manufacturing an atomic bomb.
2020 – Donald Trump: Iran economically weak but nuclear threat remains.
2021 – Joe Biden: Iran must comply with JCPOA to stop nuclear weapons.
2023 – Yoav Gallant: Iran closer to the bomb than ever.
2024 – US intelligence: Iran months away from nuclear weapons.
2025 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran could build nine nuclear weapons.
2025 – Donald Trump: US could bomb Iran if nuclear program is not stopped.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.