GW scholar debuts book arguing Iran’s nuclear drive is rooted in insecurity, not apocalypse
An international security expert at George Washington University used a campus book launch Tuesday to reframe how Iran’s nuclear program is understood, arguing that Western narratives often miss the Iranian perspective that sees the enterprise as a product of insecurity and a source of national standing.
Sina Azodi, assistant professor of Middle East politics, director of GW’s Middle East Studies Masters Program and a news contributor to CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera, introduced his new book, “Iran and the Bomb: The United States, Iran and the Nuclear Question,” at the Elliott School of International Affairs.
The event opened the Elliott School Book Launch Series spotlighting recently published works by GW faculty. Azodi said his book traces the evolution of Iran’s nuclear program and ties it to the country’s contentious relationship with the United States.
He said much of the existing scholarship is Western-centric and often portrays Iran’s ambitions as “apocalyptic,” whereas he argues the program is rooted in a historical sense of vulnerability dating to European occupations during the First and Second World Wars.
That experience, he said, fed a belief among Iranian leaders that building arms was essential to protect the state. “For the Islamic Republic, the nuclear program is also the embodiment of its global standing,” Azodi said, characterizing the program as a bargaining chip Iran uses to secure a place at negotiating tables with major powers.
He added that Iranian officials see nuclear enrichment as a source of international legitimacy. Azodi, a GW alumnus whose Elliott School master’s dissertation grew into the book, said Iran’s nuclear ambitions predate the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
He said some factions in Iran view nuclear development as necessary to deter foreign adversaries, and that both the shah’s government and the current Islamic Republic have cast the program as a marker of technological modernization and national pride. “As one Iranian scientist told me, Iran entered the 20th century on mules and unpaved roads, and it entered the 21st century with nuclear enrichment,” he said.
Describing his approach as “realist,” Azodi argued that Iranian leaders should be treated as rational actors focused on regime survival. He said this runs counter to some orientalist depictions that cast them as irrational zealots with apocalyptic aims.
He pointed to repeated vulnerabilities—most notably Iraq’s 1980 invasion and the use of chemical weapons against Iranian populations—as catalysts for a sense of “loneliness” that led leaders to conclude the country could rely only on itself. Azodi said that dynamic helps explain why Iran has persisted with its nuclear program despite international sanctions and military action.
According to Azodi, Iranian officials openly discussed the feasibility of weaponization in 2021 but lacked sufficient public support to pursue it. He said recent U.S. military action targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities could push new leadership to back the development of a nuclear bomb if public backing increases.
He also said many Iranians now view enrichment as central to national defense, a stance he argued would persist even if Iran democratized, and he is critical of the idea that only Western democracies can handle nuclear capabilities responsibly.
By centering Iranian strategic calculations, Azodi said he aims to challenge prevailing assumptions and provide a framework for understanding how the nuclear issue shapes Tehran’s engagement with Washington. The Elliott School series will continue to feature new scholarship from GW faculty in the coming months.