Iran, nucléaire & mayonnaise

[Freezbee]

La paix attendra. Trump vient de poster ceci :

 

[Freezbee]

👀

 

 

[Freezbee]

 

[Freezbee]

NSC = National Security Council

 

 

[Tramp]

Orwellien :

 

Citation

"We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel," G7 leaders said in the statement.

 

 

[Freezbee]

Voici l'article le plus percutant et le plus audacieux du moment. J'en recommande la lecture à tous, surtout en ces lieux.

L'auteur — un philosophe irano-américain — propose une solution assez révolutionnaire pour l'avenir de l'Iran... 😎

 

REBUILDING IRAN'S ECONOMY WHILE GOING ROGUE

 

 

Citation

The next ideological battle in Iran will not be religious, because Islam has already been sociologically defeated; economics is the next battleground. “Economics,” which in his infinite wisdom, Ayatollah Khomeini said, “is for donkeys.” No wonder the Islamic Republic made a shambles of Iran’s economy, despite the country’s tremendous potential – in terms of both human talent and natural resources – to retake its place among the most prosperous countries on Earth. Iran was, several times in world history, and for centuries at a time, the richest nation on the planet. The main socio-political rivalry of tomorrow’s post-Islamic, secular Iran will be between Socialism and Capitalism as systems that promise a resurgence (Rastâkhiz) of the country after nearly half a century of medievalism.

 

The Specter of Socialism in Iran

 

The prospect of a Socialist Iran taking shape cannot be overstated. The Pahlavi regime that reigned until 1979 itself favored Socialism. Despite being perceived by many in the West as capitalistic, on account of his alliance with the United States and Western Europe, the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had as the aim of the policies of his “White Revolution” (Enghelâbé Sepid) the establishment of a socialistic society in Iran explicitly modeled on Scandinavian social democracies – especially that of monarchical Sweden. His father, Reza Shah Pahlavi (1925–1941), had also been inclined toward socialistic policies of a protectionist nature, albeit in his case more right-wing ones, taking Mussolini’s Italian Fascist state and National Socialist Germany as models for Iran’s development. (He was, after all, removed from power and exiled by the Allies for leaning toward the Axis during the Second World War.) Consequently, an increasingly likely contemporary restoration of the Pahlavi regime, albeit under Reza Shah Pahlavi II in a very democratic and constitutionalist form, could easily also mean the resumption of the socialistic policies of the first two Pahlavi monarchs.

 

The prospect of a Socialist Iran taking shape cannot be overstated. The Pahlavi regime that reigned until 1979 itself favored Socialism. Despite being perceived by many in the West as capitalistic, on account of his alliance with the United States and Western Europe, the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had as the aim of the policies of his “White Revolution” (Enghelâbé Sepid) the establishment of a socialistic society in Iran explicitly modeled on Scandinavian social democracies – especially that of monarchical Sweden. His father, Reza Shah Pahlavi (1925–1941), had also been inclined toward socialistic policies of a protectionist nature, albeit in his case more right-wing ones, taking Mussolini’s Italian Fascist state and National Socialist Germany as models for Iran’s development. (He was, after all, removed from power and exiled by the Allies for leaning toward the Axis during the Second World War.) Consequently, an increasingly likely contemporary restoration of the Pahlavi regime, albeit under Reza Shah Pahlavi II in a very democratic and constitutionalist form, could easily also mean the resumption of the socialistic policies of the first two Pahlavi monarchs.

 

Chinese-Led Global Socialism

However, the confrontation that looms on the horizon is far more complex and convoluted than a simple conflict between Socialism and Capitalism in their conventional forms. In recent years, there has been a perverse transformation of global Capitalism into a new form of Socialism. This has been concurrent with, and conditioned by, the rising power of China, a new superpower governed by a nominally Communist Party that has left classic Communism – or, in its case, Maoism – behind in order to develop a new hybrid system capable not just of participating in the global capitalist market but of dominating it. The so-called ‘Chinese Communist Party’ (CCP) is now actually far more akin to a National Socialist (or Nazi) Party, with a centrally planned and extremely protectionist domestic economy, and with a de-facto Corporatist (i.e., Fascist) policy of ensuring that Chinese corporations act internationally in such a way as to benefit China domestically. In other words, that they act in league with the Chinese state as Italian corporations did under Mussolini and German corporations did under Hitler. What is far more alarming is that this new Chinese model includes ubiquitous surveillance and a social credit system that punishes deviation from accepted norms of approved collectivist and paternalistic behavior. Such social credit scoring of citizens will be optimized and fully implemented as part of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) system that has the backing of the global banking establishment and the world’s principal financial institutions.

 

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and the central banks of all of the leading Western countries, including the Federal Reserve of the United States, are all following China’s lead and facilitating a Chinese consolidation of power over a new Global Socialist system that fully incorporates the surveillance of citizens with a view to rendering them financially destitute if they violate increasingly global norms of Political Correctness. These PC norms abrogate what were once considered the fundamental rights of citizens to free expression in liberal societies. The rise of the BRICS economies led by China and the Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) are only nominally framed as a resistance to the extant global financial system. In actuality, for decades, the bankers and policy makers involved in that system have been facilitating the transformation of global Capitalism into a Chinese-led International Socialism governed by a monopolistic oligarchy who actually see any restoration and revitalization of true free market activity as a mortal threat to their agenda. The current Islamic Republic of Iran is an integral part of that agenda, and together with Putin’s Russia, forms an Axis of the three major powers – China, Russia, Iran – that are poised to lead the global socialist surveillance state. Also aligned with them and facilitating, if not directing, their agenda is an international oligarchy that is treasonous and has sold out Western populations from within. In line with this, the Chinese regime has consistently backed the brutal repression of freedom-loving Iranians – especially the youth and women – who have repeatedly risen up against the Islamic Republic in mass demonstrations that rocked Iran in 1999, 2009, 2017–2018, and 2022–2023.
 

Following the now inevitable collapse of the Islamic Republic, any manner of socialistic economic system will only allow Iran to be recaptured by this Chinese-led global cabal. Consequently, pursuing a socio-politics of freedom and independence for the future Iran is entirely dependent upon devising a new vision of radically capitalistic finance and trade that defies this agenda. Such a system needs to be developed and deployed in alliance with rebels in the West, especially in the United States of America, who also intend to break free from the global cabal and defend against the prospect of paternalistic and collectivist Chinese hegemony.

 

Bitcoin and Energy in Tomorrow’s Iran

 

The key to breaking the emerging Chinese-led global socialist system is for Iran to reemerge as a world leader in Bitcoin mining and then demand payment for all of its energy resources, both oil and natural gas, exclusively in Bitcoin. Integrating Bitcoin into China’s centralized economic system, where the government meticulously plans and controls financial activities, would be ruinous. The inherent volatility and decentralized nature of Bitcoin contrast sharply with the stability and control central to China’s economic planning. According to statistics from Bitooda that were reported in Cointelegraph on January 15, 2021, Iran accounted for 8% of the global Bitcoin hash power, putting it in third place at the time, behind only the United States and China, as one of the world’s leading countries for Bitcoin mining.
 

Unfortunately, China not only cracked down on unauthorized Bitcoin mining within its own country, but it also leaned on the Iranian government to do the same within Iran, resulting in a precipitous drop to Iran now only accounting for 0.12% of global Bitcoin mining activity. China did this because the volatility and dynamism of Bitcoin poses an existential threat to the centrally-planned Chinese economy, with the CCP relying on the relative stability of fiat currencies and the international regulation of trade in those currencies by established global financial institutions. Now the United States (35.4%), Kazakhstan (18.1%), and Russia (11.23%) are leading, with Nordic countries also making significant contributions.
 

It is not coincidental that all of the aforementioned countries have significant energy resources. Bitcoin mining is a very energy intensive enterprise on account of the substantial computational power that it requires. Specialized hardware such as Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) are used to solve complex mathematical puzzles in a process known as Proof of Work (PoW) in order to verify blocks of transactions in a decentralized worldwide public ledger known as the blockchain. Arriving at the solution to these mathematical problems is called hashing, and it is rewarded through the production of bitcoins as new verified blocks are added to the chain. One reason that this process is metaphorically referred to as bitcoin “mining” is that the block reward halves approximately every four years in an event known as the Bitcoin halving, which gradually reduces the rate at which new bitcoins are created, thereby mimicking the rate of mining precious metals. The PoW and the computational effort required to solve it make it extremely difficult for any malicious actor to alter the blockchain (which would require said actor to somehow seize control of at least 51% of the blockchain network’s computing power).
 

One of the reasons why Iran was able to emerge as such a powerhouse in bitcoin mining is because of its vast oil and natural gas resources. This is needed not only for the computer processing power itself but also to power refrigeration or air conditioning that keeps the mining devices cool enough to continue functioning. Vented or flared natural gas from oil fields, which is in abundance in Iran, is an excellent source for powering bitcoin mining from energy that would otherwise be wasted. Unfortunately, Chinese pressure and resulting regulatory chaos caused Iranian power outages as a consequence of improperly managed and ad-hoc bitcoin mining operations. This would not be the case if the Iranian government fully embraced bitcoin mining and allocated a larger percentage of Iran’s civilian power consumption to nuclear energy on the model of France (62%), which is a plan that the Shah of Iran had in the 1970s. Currently Iran only generates 1% of its power from nuclear energy. Aggressively expanding Iran’s nuclear energy infrastructure for the sake of supporting bitcoin mining operations also provides a much broader base for higher grade fissile material enrichment (both uranium and plutonium) to strengthen Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
 

This raises another issue relevant to both bitcoin mining and the nuclear energy background for the flourishing of blockchain technology in Iran. The next Iranian regime must oppose the false discourse of man-made climate change, which is propaganda being pushed by global interests that want de-industrialization and a slowing of technological development and economic growth so that they can reestablish a quasi-feudal control over the world population. Climate change activists have proposed replacing Proof of Work (PoW) with an alternative process known as Proof of Stake (PoS), which is far less energy intensive. In PoS, the integrity of the blockchain network is supposedly maintained by participants (known as “validators”) who “stake” their own cryptocurrency as collateral. The more one stakes, the higher the chances of being chosen to validate transactions and create new blocks. Since PoS does not rely on “mining,” there is no need for energy intensive hardware. Validators typically use personal computers or servers, which are far less demanding in terms of energy. It has been argued that this is more “environmentally friendly.”
 

However, it is precisely the energy intensive computational power of the PoW process that maintains the security of the blockchain network and protects against the ledger being tampered with. The more work (i.e., energy expended), the more secure the network is considered to be, because the computational power that would be required to tamper with it becomes increasingly non-feasible for anyone within the decentralized network to martial. By contrast, in PoS, the probability of validating transactions and creating new blocks is proportional to the amount of currency a validator stakes. This could potentially lead to a system where the wealthy have more control, causing a centralization of power that is contrary to the decentralized ethos of cryptocurrencies and of blockchain technology. This could defeat the purpose of deploying blockchain and bitcoin-exclusive international trade of Iran’s energy resources, because it would open a window for the globalist oligarchs to recapture Iran’s economy through PoS methods. Furthermore, PoS systems might be more susceptible to long-range attacks, where an attacker acquires old private keys from validators who no longer have stakes and uses them to create a new chain from a point far back in time. Validators might be incentivized to support multiple blockchain histories or forks, potentially leading to security issues. Finally, PoW is currently dominant on the blockchain and transitioning to PoS could be much more complex and challenging than straightforwardly and securely proceeding with the ongoing mining process in PoW. This would amplify the already significant challenge of incorporating this technology into Iran’s economy. Bitcoin, the most prominent PoW blockchain, benefits from a strong network effect and greater adoption.
 

PoW has a proven track record of securing the Bitcoin network effectively. The security of PoW is directly tied to real-world energy resources, which are abundant in Iran and both the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions that were always part of Greater Iran or the four Persian Empires. The effort (work) required to mine new blocks ensures a fair and competitive environment. It also keeps the blockchain more decentralized than a transition to PoS, where wealth directly influences control over the network and thereby renders it vulnerable to capture by the same vested interests that this revolution in finance and trade is directed against. The high cost of redoing work in PoW provides a strong guarantee against rewriting the blockchain’s history, making it highly immutable and resistant to censorship, which is a core principle for many in the cryptocurrency community and ought to be a core pillar of the adoption of this technology by the next Iranian regime. The energy consumed by Bitcoin mining is therefore justified by the network’s value in providing a decentralized, secure, and global form of money that cannot be manipulated or controlled by the current cabal of oligarchs and their Chinese client state.

Breaking China and the Global Oligarchs

In fact, the consequences of this new Iranian currency and trade policy for China’s economy would be multifarious and devastating. This would especially be the case if Iran were capable of eventually dictating trade policy regarding the oil reserves of the entire Persian Gulf region and the natural gas supplies of the whole South Caspian Sea region. If Iran required payments in Bitcoin for oil and gas from this part of the world, the Chinese economy would face major challenges. Such a system could fundamentally destabilize the Chinese regulatory and financial framework, with the transactional volatility and unpredictability of Bitcoin’s value throwing China’s economy into total disarray. China’s financial and regulatory systems, with their central and long-term planning structure, are totally unequipped to handle large-scale cryptocurrency transactions, which is why they cracked down on Bitcoin mining in their own country and also put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran to do the same. Furthermore, such a move could disrupt China’s energy supply chain, leading to much higher costs and serious energy shortages, which would further compromise economic stability and possibly even terminate growth in favor of financial collapse.
 

If the next regime in Iran could coordinate with sympathetic and aligned forces within the United States, who are similarly interested in freeing America from the global financial control and thought-policing surveillance state being planned by China and the entrenched transnational oligarchs, then the implications could be even more far-reaching. The US dollar faces a steep decline as compared to a BRICS basket of currencies, which China eventually intends to replace with a single Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) based on its own Digital Currency Electronic Payment system that is tied to a totalitarian social credit surveillance and behavioral modification program. Canada is already beginning to adopt such a system from China. Suppose that instead of acquiescing to this, a group of rebels within the United States were to successfully conspire to deliberately destroy the US dollar in a bid to establish bitcoin as the de-facto currency of America.
 

After something like a Second American Revolution, the US government might embrace blockchain technology for its transparency and security, addressing the current loss of confidence in fiat currency in a way that is more techno-optimistic, growth-oriented, and futuristic than a simple antiquarian return to the gold standard. After all, why is gold even considered to be a valuable or “precious” metal simply because it is rare? This valuation was shaped by complex psychological and aesthetic factors that were relevant to ancient or premodern societies. By contrast, Bitcoin represents the very real value of energy consumption (by PoW) as a representation of technological and industrial growth in a way that can be mapped onto the Kardashev scale of civilizational progress within a temporal horizon of cosmic scope.
 

China wants a slow and moderate decline of the US dollar, but not its collapse. If the US dollar were to suddenly become worthless, the value of China’s significant US dollar reserves would plummet, potentially leading to catastrophic financial losses. This by itself could strain China’s economy to the breaking point, affecting its ability to import goods, invest overseas, and manage its currency’s value. If Bitcoin replaced the dollar, the IMF, the World Bank, and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which oversees global financial cooperation and serves as a bank for central banks, would all face crippling challenges. These institutions are all heavily reliant on customary fiat currencies and government-backed financial structures. The BIS, in particular, would no longer be capable of facilitating international financial transactions and setting regulatory standards in coordination with central bankers, such as the US Federal Reserve. The BIS would, consequently, have to be replaced by a new International Bank of Energy and Minerals based on the mandatory trade of vital resources exclusively in Bitcoin and on the blockchain. The new regimes of Iran and America as well as other potential partners such as Argentina should work together to build such an institution to fill the void created by the engineered collapse of the BIS.
 

If, eventually, a significant portion of the world’s resources – both energy and minerals – began to be traded exclusively in Bitcoin, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) or “the New Silk Route” could be cut to shreds. China, at least with its current socio-political system, would be incapable of adapting its financial strategies for BRI projects in a way that accommodates the volatility and dynamic growth of Bitcoin. Countries currently participating in BRI would reassess their willingness to become vassals of a failing Chinese economy and would ultimately terminate their participation in the project. Many of them were, for centuries, parts of Iran and they may even opt to return to the orbit of a Greater Iran that has reasserted itself as a world leader of innovation as it was in the days when Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan – all current BRI members – were Iranian provinces or Persian principalities. If there is to be a new Silk Route, it should emanate from Greater Iran, not from China.
 

The path to such a glorious future will, however, be very hard fought and for a long time it is bound to be a lonely road. When Iran emerged, briefly, as one of the global leaders in bitcoin mining in 2021 it was not only because of its energy resources, nor is that the only reason why Russia is currently among the leading bitcoin mining nations. Sanctions have played a huge role in both cases. International sanctions of conventional fiat-currency based trade with both Iran and Russia pushed both countries to use trade in bitcoin and blockchain based transactions as a means to circumvent the isolation that Western powers were attempting to impose on them. An Iran that intends to challenge the power of the global oligarchy and associated Chinese hegemony should be prepared to deploy this method even more substantively.

Separation of Economy and State: Legislating Against “Stakeholder Capitalism”
 

In recent years, China has become a model for a new form of economic system often referred to as “stakeholder capitalism” or Corporatism. This system, which merges elements of state control with private enterprise, emphasizes the role of corporations in addressing social and environmental issues. It aims to align the interests of businesses with those of the state, creating a centrally planned and highly controlled economic environment. This quasi-fascist approach enables the state to exert significant influence over corporate actions, ensuring that businesses operate in ways that benefit the government's long-term strategic goals.
 

For Iran, the adoption of a similar stakeholder capitalism model poses significant risks. Such a system could undermine the principles of economic freedom, decentralization, and innovation that are central to the future political economy of Iran that is being proposed here. By allowing the state to exert undue influence over private enterprises, stakeholder capitalism could stifle competition, discourage entrepreneurial activities, and lead to the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few state-aligned corporations. This would be detrimental to Iran’s aspirations for economic independence and technological advancement.
 

To prevent the emergence of stakeholder capitalism in Iran, a series of robust legislative measures must be enacted. These laws should be designed to ensure that the Iranian economy remains free, competitive, and resistant to the undue influence of both the state and large corporations. One essential measure is the enactment of strict anti-monopoly laws that prevent the concentration of market power in the hands of a few large corporations. These laws should promote competition and ensure that no single entity can dominate a particular industry. Additionally, implementing policies that support the growth and development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) by providing them with access to funding, resources, and markets will help maintain a diverse and competitive economic landscape.
 

Requiring all corporations to establish independent boards of directors free from government interference will ensure that corporate decisions are made based on merit and the interests of shareholders, rather than state directives. Mandating transparency in corporate governance by requiring regular disclosure of financial statements, board decisions, and executive compensation will prevent corruption and ensure that corporations are accountable to their shareholders and the public.

Promoting decentralized economic planning by encouraging local and regional governments to develop their own economic policies and initiatives will reduce the concentration of economic power at the national level and foster innovation and competition across different regions. Supporting the use of blockchain technology and decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms to decentralize financial transactions will empower individuals and businesses to conduct transactions securely and transparently without state interference.
 

Enacting laws that protect private property rights and ensure that individuals and businesses have secure ownership of their assets will encourage investment and innovation by providing legal certainty. Strengthening intellectual property laws to protect the rights of inventors, creators, and innovators will incentivize research and development, fostering a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. Introducing a constitutional amendment or legal provisions that explicitly prohibit the government from interfering in the management and operations of private enterprises will safeguard the autonomy of businesses and prevent the state from exerting undue influence. Establishing independent regulatory bodies to oversee key industries and ensure compliance with laws and regulations will maintain a fair and competitive market environment, free from political influence.
 

Implementing educational programs that promote the principles of free markets, entrepreneurship, and innovation will cultivate a culture that values economic freedom and individual initiative. Providing tax incentives, grants, and other forms of support for innovative startups and tech companies will encourage the development of new technologies and business models that can drive economic growth.
 

To ensure the successful implementation of the proposed economic policies for Iran, it is crucial to prevent the rise of stakeholder capitalism or Corporatist systems that could undermine economic freedom and innovation. By enacting robust legislative measures that promote competition, transparency, and decentralization, Iran can safeguard its economic independence and create a dynamic and innovative economy. These laws will help ensure that Iran remains resilient against the influences of both state and corporate monopolies, paving the way for a future of prosperity and technological advancement.
 

Drawing an analogy to the historical separation of Church and State, which served to empower individuals by freeing them from the overreach of religious authorities, a similar separation of Economy and State can liberate individuals from the collectivist tendencies of centralized and monopolistic “stakeholder capitalism.” Just as the separation of Church and State fostered an environment where personal freedom, intellectual progress, and social diversity could flourish, separating the economy from state control can create a dynamic and innovative economic landscape where individual enterprise and creativity are paramount.
 

This separation would ensure that economic decisions are made based on market principles and the merit of ideas, rather than political considerations and state agendas. It would prevent the state from using economic power to impose ideological conformity and would protect the autonomy of businesses to operate independently. By reducing the state's role in the economy to that of a regulator ensuring fair play and protecting property rights, Iran can avoid the pitfalls of stakeholder capitalism, where corporate and state interests merge to the detriment of individual freedoms and economic vitality.

The Global Economic Influence of Hedge Funds as a Factor

 

In recent decades, hedge funds such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street have amassed significant power over the US economy and the global financial system. These asset management giants collectively oversee trillions of dollars in assets, giving them substantial influence over the stock market and corporate governance. Their dominance extends beyond mere financial markets; through extensive lobbying efforts, they exert considerable control over US Government economic policies, shaping the regulatory landscape to their advantage.
 

The lobbying activities of these hedge funds are aimed at maintaining and expanding their influence. BlackRock, for instance, has been particularly active in lobbying for regulations that favor its business model and investments. This includes advocating for policies that promote financial stability, which in practice often translates to measures that reinforce the status quo and the dominance of established financial institutions. By leveraging their political connections and financial clout, these hedge funds can influence legislation and regulatory frameworks that impact everything from banking and securities to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria.
 

One of the critical areas where the influence of hedge funds like BlackRock is becoming increasingly evident is in the realm of cryptocurrency. As Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have gained prominence as potential alternatives to traditional fiat currencies, these hedge funds have sought to capture and control this emerging market. BlackRock, in particular, has made strategic investments in blockchain technology and has even explored launching Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
 

However, the involvement of such powerful financial entities in the cryptocurrency space is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it brings a level of legitimacy and mainstream acceptance to Bitcoin. On the other hand, it poses a significant risk of co-opting the very principles of decentralization and financial independence that Bitcoin embodies. By controlling substantial portions of the cryptocurrency market, these hedge funds can influence its trajectory in ways that may inhibit or neutralize its potential to disrupt the current global financial system, which is increasingly dominated by China.
 

The proposals for Iran’s future economic system, which include leveraging Bitcoin and blockchain technology to gain independence from the Chinese-led global socialist system, must take into account the influence of these hedge funds. As Iran seeks to reemerge as a world leader in Bitcoin mining and demand payment for its energy resources in Bitcoin, it will inevitably come into conflict with the interests of hedge funds like BlackRock, which may view such moves as a threat to their control over the financial system.
 

To counteract this influence, Iran must develop strategies to protect its Bitcoin infrastructure from external manipulation and co-optation. This includes implementing robust regulatory frameworks that prevent undue foreign control over its cryptocurrency markets and fostering a domestic ecosystem of blockchain innovation that is resilient to external pressures. Additionally, as already noted above, forming strategic alliances with other nations and entities that share a vision of financial independence and decentralization can help Iran strengthen its position against the hegemonic ambitions of these hedge funds.
 

The influence of BlackRock, in particular, extends into the US military-industrial complex through its substantial investments in American defense contractors. Some of the major defense companies in which BlackRock is heavily invested include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Technologies, General Dynamics, and Boeing. These companies are integral to the US defense industry, providing advanced military technology, equipment, and services. BlackRock’s significant stakes in these firms give it a vested interest in the policies and actions of the US military-industrial complex.
 

Given BlackRock’s deep ties to the defense sector, it is conceivable that the hedge fund could leverage its influence to oppose Iran’s aspirations for economic independence. Should Iran pursue a radical transformation of its economy centered on Bitcoin and blockchain technology, which poses a threat to the established global financial system, BlackRock and its allies in the defense industry could potentially support military or economic actions to undermine Iran’s efforts. Such actions could include economic sanctions, military intervention, and cyber warfare. There could be lobbying for increased economic sanctions against Iran to isolate it from global financial markets and hinder its ability to engage in Bitcoin-based trade. Military interventions could be advocated for and supported under the guise of maintaining regional stability or countering terrorism, thereby disrupting Iran’s economic initiatives. Cyber capabilities could be used to target Iran’s Bitcoin mining infrastructure and financial networks, aiming to destabilize its economy and prevent the successful implementation of its new economic model.
 

The power of hedge funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street over the global economy cannot be underestimated. Their ability to influence US Government economic policy and their efforts to control the cryptocurrency market pose significant challenges to the proposals for Iran’s economic future. By recognizing these challenges and proactively developing strategies to counteract their influence, Iran can better position itself to achieve the vision of a liberated and technologically advanced economy that stands independent of the Chinese-dominated global system. Undoubtedly to the chagrin of the majority of Iranians, who just want to be reintegrated into global society, an Iran that intends to pursue such a policy as outlined above will be treated as a dangerous rogue state until such time as it succeeds, together with a few other powerful rebel nations, in breaking the existing system and replacing it with something more empowering to freedom-loving and industrious individuals.

The United Nations, World Economic Forum, and World Bank

 

The United Nations (UN) and its associated institutions, including the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the World Bank, have a significant influence on global economic policies. These organizations claim to promote global prosperity and sustainability, but their policies often have constraining effects on nations seeking to pursue independent and unconventional economic paths, such as the proposals outlined here for Iran’s future political economy. The UN Agenda 2030, with its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), supposedly aims to address various global challenges, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace, and justice. But their implementation often involves policies that can be restrictive and counterproductive for countries like Iran that aspire to economic independence and rapid industrialization.
 

One of the central themes of the SDGs is sustainable development, which frequently translates into stringent regulations on industrial activities, energy consumption, and environmental practices. These regulations can hinder Iran’s efforts to harness its vast natural resources, including oil and natural gas, for Bitcoin mining and other energy-intensive industries. The emphasis on reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable energy sources, while beneficial in the long run, may conflict with Iran's immediate need to leverage its energy resources for economic growth and technological advancement.
 

The World Economic Forum (WEF), an influential international organization, advocates for global cooperation and the integration of economies through policies that align with the UN’s sustainability agenda. The WEF promotes stakeholder capitalism and the role of private corporations in addressing social and environmental issues. This often results in policies that favor large multinational corporations over smaller, emerging economies. For Iran, this means that the WEF's policies could undermine its efforts to establish a decentralized and independent economic system based on Bitcoin and blockchain technology. The WEF's push for global standards and regulations could impose additional bureaucratic hurdles, making it difficult for Iran to implement its innovative economic strategies without facing international scrutiny and opposition.
 

The World Bank, as a major financial institution, provides funding and technical assistance to developing countries. However, its lending policies and conditionalities often come with stringent requirements that can limit a nation’s economic sovereignty. For instance, the World Bank’s focus on sustainable development and environmental protection can translate into restrictive conditions on industrial projects and energy policies. Tomorrow’s Iran cannot afford to adhere to World Bank policies that prioritize de-industrialization and the reduction of carbon footprints over rapid economic development. This would impede Iran’s plans to utilize its energy resources for Bitcoin mining and other industrial activities, thereby constraining Iranian economic growth and technological progress.
 

A significant aspect of the global sustainability agenda involves addressing population growth through Malthusian-type policies. These policies advocate for population control measures under the guise of curbing human-induced climate change and preserving environmental resources. Population management, as part of so-called “sustainable development,” carries with it coercive and restrictive practices that undermine individual freedoms and national sovereignty. For Iran, embracing such population control measures could lead to social and political unrest, as well as hinder its ability to harness its human capital for economic and technological innovation. The emphasis on curbing population growth may also conflict with Iran’s need to expand its workforce to support its ambitious economic projects and industrial activities.
 

The global push for de-industrialization, justified under the banner of mitigating climate change, poses a significant threat to Iran’s economic aspirations. De-industrialization policies often involve transitioning away from traditional energy sources, imposing strict environmental regulations, and reducing industrial output. While these measures aim to protect the environment, they can also stifle economic growth and technological advancement. For Iran, which seeks to leverage its energy resources for Bitcoin mining and other industries, de-industrialization policies could prove detrimental. These policies could limit Iran’s ability to utilize its natural resources effectively, leading to economic stagnation and a loss of competitive advantage in the global market.
 

The economic organs and policies of the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank present significant obstacles to Iran’s proposed future political economy. The emphasis on sustainable development, population control, and de-industrialization conflicts with Iran’s plans to achieve economic independence through innovative use of its energy resources and technological advancements. To overcome these challenges, Iran must develop robust strategies to navigate and counteract the influence of these global institutions, ensuring that its vision for a liberated and technologically advanced economy can be realized without undue external constraints.

 

[Tramp]

Quel gloubi boulga. Blackrock n’est pas un Hedge fund. 

[Freezbee]

[Marlenus]

Heureusement que c'est Trump.

Avec un Poutine, j'aurais cru à une Nuke sur Téhéran.

 

Là, je me dis rien.

[Liber Pater]

TACO de toute façon

[Marlenus]

2 minutes ago, Liber Pater said:

TACO de toute façon

C'est ça.

[Riffraff]

Au moins le conflit Iran/Israël aura permit de bien identifier les véritables anti-sémites dans la sphère médiatique française.

 

Le conflit à Gaza étant moins facilement défendable, il y a beaucoup de victimes civiles - je rappelle que ce n'est pas un crime de guerre de bombarder des populations civiles si des soldats sont présents (utilisation de boucliers humains) et que c'est un crime de guerre de se mêler pour des soldats aux populations civiles - Le prétendu génocide est peut-être la faute du Hamas, mais bon c'est quand même une interprétation ambiguë et de toute manière cela donne une mauvaise image d'Israël.

On peut comprendre donc les récriminations envers Israël, surtout que cela fait 80 ans que la propagande est alimentée. J'ajoute que les précautions qu'a souvent prises l'armée israélienne par le passé pour éviter des dommages collatéraux ne sont plus de mise depuis le 7 octobre.

 

Mais le masque tombe avec le conflit contre l'Iran, le régime est universellement honni en occident par la droite et par la gauche, les deux pays n'ont jamais combattu directement, on connait les proxys de l'Iran mais c'est un conflit indirect, Israël ne convoite pas des territoires iraniens...

Cependant on voit fleurir les explications incriminant Israël, le risque de troisième guerre mondiale, mêmes les américains ne les soutiennent plus, c'est une violation du droit international, etc, tout à coup le régime Iranien devient paré de toutes les vertus sans aucune vergogne !  Ne parlons pas de Netanyahu depuis longtemps condamné qui n'a plus le soutien de son opinion, encore etc. Je n'ai pas le temps de faire un florilège des déclarations mais il y a eu quelques perles.

 

Je souhaite vraiment que le régime iranien ne survive pas au conflit et c'est vraiment une possibilité, pour le salut des Iraniens bien sûr, mais aussi pour voir la gueule que feront tous les petits soldats de la haine d'Israël...

 

 

 

 

[Tramp]

il y a 39 minutes, Riffraff a dit :

Cependant on voit fleurir les explications incriminant Israël

C’est quand même osé alors qu’Israel a attaqué l’Iran en plein milieu de négociations diplomatiques. 

[Riffraff]

il y a 27 minutes, Tramp a dit :

C’est quand même osé alors qu’Israel a attaqué l’Iran en plein milieu de négociations diplomatiques. 

 

Oui bien sûr l'Iran avait vraiment l'intention d'arrêter son programme ou peut-être une stratégie pour gagner du temps ? Peut-être....

[Marlenus]

1 hour ago, Riffraff said:

Au moins le conflit Iran/Israël aura permit de bien identifier les véritables anti-sémites dans la sphère médiatique française.

L'antisémitisme, dorénavant, c'est ne pas aimer Netanyahu, son gouvernement et leurs actions.

On le savait remarque.

 

 

Quote

Je souhaite vraiment que le régime iranien ne survive pas au conflit

Perso si le régime des mollah s'effondre, j'irais reprendre 2 fois des moules.

 

Par contre, comme toi, je serais intéressé de voir tout ceux qui disent que cela sera super leur réaction quand ils verrons ce qui lui succèdera.

Entre Khadafi ou Hussein, il y a pas un régime que je regrette alors que c'est l'"occident" qui les a chassé, par contre les lendemains qui chantent, je crois que les habitants des pays concernés les attendent toujours.

Et qu'est-ce qu'on s'est pris comme réfugiés.

 

Mais bon, la démocratie qui s'exporte avec les bombes, cela a toujours ses adeptes visiblement.

Pourquoi pas.

 

[F. mas]

21 minutes ago, Riffraff said:

 

 

 

Extension du domaine de l'antisémitisme : ceux qui protestent contre une violation manifeste du droit international et contre la volonté affichée d'engager les USA dans un conflit généralisé au proche orient sans perspective claire de paix. Brillant. Sur un forum libéral en plus. On vit une époque formidable.

[Johnnieboy]

Existe-t-il des exemples historiques de relations similaires à celle qui existe entre Israël et les États-Unis ? Il y a un côté surréaliste à voir un petit pays quasiment prendre des décisions aussi importantes pour son allié largement plus grand. 


Ce ne serait que de la politique intérieure américaine ? Car les bénéfices, j'en vois peu pour les Américains à part les phrases creuses du genre : "Ils disposent d'un allié fidèle au Moyen-Orient", ce qui ne veut rien dire en soi.

 

[Lameador]

1 minute ago, Johnnieboy said:

Existe-t-il des exemples historiques de relations similaires à celle qui existe entre Israël et les États-Unis ? Il y a un côté surréaliste à voir un petit pays quasiment prendre des décisions aussi importantes pour son allié largement plus grand. 

 

Le UK et l'Inde ?

Le Portugal et le Brésil ?

L'Espagne et l'Amérique latine ?

Les états pontificaux et l'Europe médiévale / à la Renaissance ?

Athènes et la ligue de Délos ?

Paris et la France ?

...

 

[Lugaxker]

Il y a 7 heures, Freezbee a dit :

"The key to breaking the emerging Chinese-led global socialist system is for Iran to reemerge as a world leader in Bitcoin mining and then demand payment for all of its energy resources, both oil and natural gas, exclusively in Bitcoin."

Bitcoin ne résout pas tout, surtout s'il s'agit de conflits géopolitiques.

[Rübezahl]

il y a 20 minutes, Johnnieboy a dit :

Ce ne serait que de la politique intérieure américaine ? Car les bénéfices, j'en vois peu pour les Américains à part les phrases creuses du genre : "Ils disposent d'un allié fidèle au Moyen-Orient", ce qui ne veut rien dire en soi.

Les boites de défense israéliennes sont vraiment au top (souvent testées en conditions réelles).

C'est ama un point qui compte fort, surtout en ce moment.

[Astral]

il y a 10 minutes, Lameador a dit :

Le UK et l'Inde ?

Le Portugal et le Brésil ?

L'Espagne et l'Amérique latine ?

Les états pontificaux et l'Europe médiévale / à la Renaissance ?

Athènes et la ligue de Délos ?

Paris et la France ?

Je ne m'y connais pas assez sur les relations UK - Indes, Portugal -Brésil ou Espagne-Amérique latine pour commenter mais je ne suis pas d'accord sur les deux derniers exemples. La réalité est qu'Athènes était l'hégémon de la ligue de Devos tous comme Paris le serait pour la France, d’où leurs influence politique sur les vassaux.

Au niveau USA - Israël, la relation est inverse et l'hégémon est influencé de manière disproportionnée par l'un de ses vassaux. Mais effectivement, est ce que la relation n'est pas à rapprocher de la relation États pontificaux - Europe médiévale/Renaissance, notamment concernant l'influence culturelle, qui est je pense l'une des grande cause de l'état actuel de la relation.

[Tramp]

Il y a 2 heures, Riffraff a dit :

Oui bien sûr l'Iran avait vraiment l'intention d'arrêter son programme ou peut-être une stratégie pour gagner du temps ? Peut-être....

Quand bien même l’Iran continue son programme, c’est bien Israel qui les a attaqué. 
C’est d’ailleurs un excellent argument pour un pays pour avoir la bombe. Quand tu es menacé en permanence par des puissances nucléaires, quel est ton autre choix ?

 

La grande menace Iranienne qui est sous embargo depuis 30 ans, est en retard technologique considérable face aux US et à Israël, dispose de 3 semaines de munitions… Ça me rappelle une autre histoire.

[F. mas]

20 minutes ago, Lameador said:

 

Le UK et l'Inde ?

Le Portugal et le Brésil ?

L'Espagne et l'Amérique latine ?

Les états pontificaux et l'Europe médiévale / à la Renaissance ?

Athènes et la ligue de Délos ?

Paris et la France ?

...

 

 

Je ne suis pas sûr que ces exemples soient très pertinents. Les premiers semblent désigner des Etats à leurs colonies (qui est le colonisé de qui entre US et Isr?), Les Etats pontificaux, je ne vois pas où tu veux en venir, Athènes et la ligue de Delos non plus (je ne vois pas de relations spéciales au sein de la ligue comparable à celle US/Isr) et Paris et la France semble suggérer qu'Israel serait la capitale de l'empire atlantique (ou l'inverse). Il faudrait trouver une alliance politique et stratégique entre états démocratiques étroites, ce qui n'est pas si simple. 

[Riffraff]

Il y a 1 heure, F. mas a dit :

 

Extension du domaine de l'antisémitisme : ceux qui protestent contre une violation manifeste du droit international et contre la volonté affichée d'engager les USA dans un conflit généralisé au proche orient sans perspective claire de paix. Brillant. Sur un forum libéral en plus. On vit une époque formidable.

 

L'argument du droit international, n'est pas celui qui est cité en premier, ça peut être en effet le plus valable, maintenant le droit international est-ce qu'il répond à toutes les valeurs du libéralisme puisque tu finis par le citer ? Est-ce qu'il a été mis en œuvre de manière impartiale dans le passé, est-ce que l'ONU n'est pas susceptible de reproche ? Le droit international n'a-t-il pas été violé par l'Iran en poursuivant son programme ?

Je ne vois en quoi entrainer - les modalités restent à préciser et à prouver - son allié à les aider présente un caractère outrageant.

 

 

 

[Riffraff]

il y a une heure, Johnnieboy a dit :

Existe-t-il des exemples historiques de relations similaires à celle qui existe entre Israël et les États-Unis ? Il y a un côté surréaliste à voir un petit pays quasiment prendre des décisions aussi importantes pour son allié largement plus grand. 
 

 

Je vais creuser la question, mais on peut envisager quelques pistes.

 

Même avant la guerre d'indépendance les colonies se sont fondées sur la liberté religieuse, les Juifs sont un peu l'archétype de la religion persécutée.

 

Il fallait au sortir de la guerre se différencier de la vieille Europe pour finaliser la suprématie américaine, pour des américains majoritairement européens ethniques c'est un bon moyen.

 

40 % des prix Nobel américain sont Juifs. (j'ai pas les derniers chiffre la proportion d'Asiatiques a dû augmenter)

 

Hollywood.

[Tramp]

il y a 12 minutes, Riffraff a dit :

Le droit international n'a-t-il pas été violé par l'Iran en poursuivant son programme ?

Non.

[Riffraff]

Il y a 2 heures, Marlenus a dit :

L'antisémitisme, dorénavant, c'est ne pas aimer Netanyahu, son gouvernement et leurs actions.

On le savait remarque.

 

 

Perso si le régime des mollah s'effondre, j'irais reprendre 2 fois des moules.

 

Par contre, comme toi, je serais intéressé de voir tout ceux qui disent que cela sera super leur réaction quand ils verrons ce qui lui succèdera.

Entre Khadafi ou Hussein, il y a pas un régime que je regrette alors que c'est l'"occident" qui les a chassé, par contre les lendemains qui chantent, je crois que les habitants des pays concernés les attendent toujours.

Et qu'est-ce qu'on s'est pris comme réfugiés.

 

Mais bon, la démocratie qui s'exporte avec les bombes, cela a toujours ses adeptes visiblement.

Pourquoi pas.

 

 

Alors, je pense qu'on méconnait la richesse culturel et le riche passé des Persans l’ethnie principale de l'Iran, ce n'est pas faire offense aux Libyens de dire que cette civilisation à plus de ressources pour faire une transition démocratique, je ne connais pas bien l’Irak.

 

[F. mas]

Just now, Riffraff said:

 

L'argument du droit international, n'est pas celui qui est cité en premier, ça peut être en effet le plus valable, maintenant le droit international est-ce qu'il répond à toutes les valeurs du libéralisme puisque tu finis par le cité ? Est-ce qu'il a été mis en œuvre de manière impartiale dans le passé, est-ce que l'ONU n'est pas susceptible de reproche ? Le droit international n'a-t-il pas été violé par l'Iran en poursuivant son programme ?

Je ne vois en quoi entrainer - les modalités restent à préciser et à prouver - son allié à les aider présente un caractère outrageant.

 

 

 

 

Essayer de policer les relations internationales par le droit en criminalisant la guerre d'agression est une constante parmi les auteurs libéraux. On peut estimer que le projet à des trous, que la coutume internationale est imparfaite, ou même que l'attaque est une forme de légitime défense (c'est ici ama le débat, sur la guerre préventive), mais la situation qui glorifie à la loi du plus fort n'est en tout cas pas libérale.

 

L'Iran n'a pas respecter ses obligations en matière nucléaire, mais des négociations étaient en cours. Là, toute résolution diplomatique du problème est devenue impossible. 

 

Si tu ne vois pas le problème à générer un conflit généralisé au proche orient, je ne peux rien pour toi. 

 

On est en train de revivre la guerre en Irak. C'est dingue.

[Riffraff]

il y a 6 minutes, Tramp a dit :

Non.

 

 

La question de savoir dans quelle mesure l'Iran a violé le droit international en poursuivant son programme nucléaire est complexe et nécessite une analyse des obligations de l'Iran au titre du Traité sur la non-prolifération des armes nucléaires (TNP), de l'accord de garanties avec l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique (AIEA), et du Plan d'action global commun (JCPOA ou PAGC) de 2015, ainsi que des résolutions pertinentes du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Voici une réponse concise et structurée, basée sur les informations disponibles et une analyse critique :

1. Contexte du programme nucléaire iranien

L'Iran est signataire du TNP depuis 1970, qui lui accorde le droit de développer l'énergie nucléaire à des fins pacifiques, tout en interdisant la poursuite d'armes nucléaires (article IV et II du TNP). Cependant, les activités nucléaires de l'Iran ont suscité des préoccupations internationales, notamment en raison de son manque de transparence, de ses activités d'enrichissement d'uranium, et de ses installations non déclarées.

2. Principales violations alléguées du droit international

a) Non-déclaration d'activités nucléaires (2002-2003)

• En 2002, la révélation par un dissident iranien de l'existence de sites nucléaires non déclarés à Natanz et Arak a soulevé des soupçons de non-respect des obligations de l'Iran envers l'AIEA. Selon l'accord de garanties généralisées, l'Iran était tenu d'informer l'AIEA de toute nouvelle installation nucléaire dès sa planification. Bien que l'Iran ait soutenu que ses obligations à l'époque ne nécessitaient pas une déclaration immédiate, l'AIEA a jugé en 2003 que l'Iran avait manqué à ses obligations de transparence.
• En 2009, la découverte du site secret de Fordow, non déclaré à l'AIEA, a renforcé les accusations de violation des obligations de déclaration, bien que l'Iran ait affirmé que ce site était destiné à des fins pacifiques.

b) Enrichissement d'uranium au-delà des limites du JCPOA (depuis 2019)

• Le JCPOA, signé en 2015, imposait des limites strictes à l'enrichissement d'uranium (3,67 % maximum) et au stock d'uranium enrichi (300 kg maximum). Après le retrait des États-Unis du JCPOA en 2018 et la réimposition de sanctions, l'Iran a progressivement repris des activités nucléaires en violation de l'accord :
  • Stock d'uranium enrichi : En 2025, l'AIEA a rapporté que l'Iran possédait plus de 6 200 kg d'uranium enrichi, soit 30 fois la limite autorisée par le JCPOA, dont 142,1 kg enrichis à 60 %, un niveau proche des 90 % nécessaires pour une arme nucléaire.
  • Niveau d'enrichissement : L'Iran est le seul État non doté d'armes nucléaires à enrichir l'uranium à 60 %, ce qui n'a pas de justification civile crédible selon l'AIEA et les puissances occidentales.
  • Production d'uranium métal : L'Iran a également commencé à produire de l'uranium métal, une étape clé vers le développement d'armes nucléaires.

c) Non-coopération avec l'AIEA

• Depuis 2019, l'Iran a réduit sa coopération avec l'AIEA, notamment en limitant l'accès des inspecteurs à certains sites et en cessant d'appliquer certaines dispositions de l'accord de garanties. En juin 2025, l'AIEA a adopté une résolution déclarant l'Iran en non-conformité avec ses obligations de non-prolifération, citant un manque de transparence et l'incapacité de l'Agence à vérifier que le programme nucléaire iranien est exclusivement pacifique.
• La découverte de traces de matières fissiles non déclarées sur plusieurs sites a aggravé les préoccupations, l'Iran refusant de fournir des explications satisfaisantes.

d) Résolutions du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU

• Entre 2006 et 2010, le Conseil de sécurité a adopté plusieurs résolutions (notamment 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835 et 1929) exigeant que l'Iran suspende ses activités d'enrichissement et coopère pleinement avec l'AIEA. L'Iran a continué ses activités malgré ces résolutions, ce qui constitue une violation du droit international, car les résolutions du Conseil de sécurité sont juridiquement contraignantes.

e) Projet AMAD (1999-2003)

• Des rapports de l'AIEA ont révélé que l'Iran avait mené un programme de recherche sur les armes nucléaires, appelé projet AMAD, jusqu'en 2003. Ce programme visait à concevoir des ogives nucléaires, en violation de l'article II du TNP, qui interdit aux États non dotés d'armes nucléaires de poursuivre de telles activités. Bien que l'Iran ait suspendu ce programme en 2003, les soupçons persistent quant à d'éventuelles activités résiduelles.

3. Contre-arguments de l'Iran

• L'Iran affirme que son programme nucléaire est exclusivement destiné à des fins pacifiques, comme la production d'électricité et la recherche médicale, ce qui est conforme à son droit inaliénable au titre de l'article IV du TNP.
• Téhéran soutient que ses violations du JCPOA sont une réponse légitime au retrait unilatéral des États-Unis en 2018 et à l'échec des autres signataires (E3/UE) à compenser les sanctions économiques imposées. L'Iran considère l'enrichissement d'uranium comme un droit souverain et accuse les puissances occidentales d'appliquer un « apartheid nucléaire ».
• Concernant les sites non déclarés, l'Iran argue que ses obligations de déclaration à l'AIEA à l'époque étaient limitées et que les accusations de violations sont politiquement motivées.

4. Conséquences et portée des violations

• Menace pour la non-prolifération : Les activités nucléaires de l'Iran, notamment l'enrichissement à 60 % et le stock accumulé, réduisent son « breakout time » (temps nécessaire pour produire une arme nucléaire) à environ une semaine pour une bombe et un mois pour sept, selon des estimations récentes. Cela constitue une menace potentielle pour le régime de non-prolifération.
• Sanctions et pressions internationales : Les violations de l'Iran ont conduit à des sanctions économiques sévères, des résolutions de l'AIEA condamnant Téhéran, et des frappes militaires israéliennes contre des sites nucléaires en juin 2025, considérées comme une violation du droit international par certains (résolutions de l'AIEA GC(XXIX)/RES/444 et GC(XXXIV)/RES/533).
• Impact régional : Les progrès nucléaires de l'Iran alimentent les tensions avec des pays comme Israël, qui considère un Iran nucléaire comme une menace existentielle, et peuvent encourager une course aux armements dans la région.

5. Analyse critique

• Nature des violations : Bien que l'Iran n'ait pas formellement produit d'arme nucléaire, ses activités (enrichissement à haut niveau, non-coopération avec l'AIEA, sites non déclarés) violent clairement ses engagements internationaux, notamment le JCPOA et les résolutions du Conseil de sécurité. Ces actions vont au-delà de ce qui est nécessaire pour un programme nucléaire civil, alimentant les soupçons d'intentions militaires.
• Contexte politique : Les violations de l'Iran doivent être vues dans le contexte de la rupture du JCPOA par les États-Unis en 2018, qui a exacerbé les tensions. Certains soutiennent que l'Iran utilise son programme nucléaire comme un levier diplomatique pour négocier la levée des sanctions, plutôt que comme une quête d'armes nucléaires.
• Ambiguïté juridique : Le droit de l'Iran à enrichir l'uranium pour des fins pacifiques est reconnu par le TNP, mais l'absence de transparence et l'enrichissement à des niveaux proches de l'usage militaire rendent difficile la distinction entre intentions civiles et militaires.

6. Conclusion

L'Iran a violé le droit international à plusieurs égards : non-déclaration de sites nucléaires, non-respect des limites du JCPOA, poursuite de l'enrichissement à des niveaux non justifiés par des besoins civils, et non-coopération avec l'AIEA. Ces actions contreviennent au TNP, à l'accord de garanties, et aux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité. Cependant, l'Iran justifie ses actions comme une réponse aux sanctions et à la pression occidentale, tout en affirmant son droit à un programme nucléaire civil. Les violations de l'Iran ont des implications graves pour la non-prolifération et la stabilité régionale, mais la question reste politiquement chargée, les responsabilités étant partagées entre l'Iran, les États-Unis (pour leur retrait du JCPOA), et d'autres acteurs internationaux.

Pour des informations plus détaillées sur les négociations en cours ou les rapports de l'AIEA, je peux approfondir ou fournir des sources spécifiques si nécessaire.

[Tramp]

2009, c’était y a 16 ans. Ça fait un bail que l’AIEA est au courant. 
Quant au JCPOA, il faut vraiment s’être fait opérer de la honte pour soutenir qu’il engage l’Iran.