Donald Trump’s latest threats against the area known as Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear complex are more than media rhetoric or campaign remarks. They reflect the continuation of an approach that has, for years, openly disregarded international law, the prohibition on the use of force, and the principles governing nuclear security. Asked whether Iran might have moved its centrifuges to the area, the US president acknowledged that Washington had no verified intelligence and had only heard "fake news." Yet he simultaneously threatened to strike the area if necessary. This clear contradiction once again shows that, for the US, military threats are based not on evidence but on political pressure and psychological warfare.
Nuclear Terrorism: A Threat the Self-Proclaimed Defenders of Nuclear Security Ignore
Pickaxe Mountain, or Kolang Gazla, lies near the Natanz nuclear facilities. Regardless of whether the claims about the site are true, directly threatening it constitutes a threat against the nuclear infrastructure of a country that is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Such a threat targets not only Iran’s security, but also regional security and the global nonproliferation regime.
Nevertheless, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the governments that have spent the past two decades imposing the toughest pressure on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program in the name of nuclear security have remained silent. That silence raises serious questions about the credibility of international institutions. How can an agency that closely scrutinizes even the smallest aspect of Iran’s nuclear activities remain silent in the face of an explicit threat to attack a nuclear facility?
Dual Strategy of "Threat and Negotiation": Repeating a Failed Policy
Trump’s remarks should be viewed within the framework of a strategy that combines "negotiation" with military pressure. On one hand, the US president speaks of readiness for talks, while the US secretary of state claims Iran lacks seriousness about negotiations. On the other hand, threats of attack, military pressure, and targeting critical infrastructure continue.
The objective of this policy is to create psychological pressure and force Iran into negotiations shaped not by the principles of international law, but by Washington’s unilateral demands. Nuclear threats, references to attacks on infrastructure, and renewed discussion of assassinating Iranian officials should all be seen as elements of the same strategy, one designed to intimidate Iran into changing its strategic calculations.
Behind Trump’s Threats: Escaping Battlefield Realities
Despite extensive media messaging, realities on the ground present a different picture. The gradual acknowledgment by US officials of war casualties and costs, reports of damage to US bases and interests, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s insistence on a decisive response to any aggression, continued pressure on strategic energy routes, and Washington’s failure to achieve its declared objectives all point to conditions far removed from the White House’s narrative of success.
In this context, emphasizing threats such as striking Pickaxe Mountain appears less a sign of US battlefield superiority than an attempt to shift public attention and conceal Washington’s strategic deadlock. Experience has shown that whenever the US has faced serious challenges on the ground, psychological warfare and displays of force have replaced tangible achievements.
IAEA and Europe Under Scrutiny: A Test of International Credibility
Trump’s statements constitute a critical test for the IAEA, its director general, and European governments. If the agency’s role is solely to monitor countries’ nuclear activities, why has it remained silent in the face of an explicit threat to attack the nuclear facilities of an NPT member state? If its true mission is to safeguard global nuclear security, why has there been no emergency meeting, formal condemnation, or deterrent action against the US?
This silence casts serious doubt on years of Western claims of defending the nonproliferation regime. The absence of any response from the IAEA or European governments to threats against Iran’s nuclear facilities demonstrates, more than anything else, that double standards continue to shape their conduct.
Regardless of whether Trump’s threats are ultimately carried out, one fact remains unchanged: the Islamic Republic of Iran considers its inherent right to self-defense in protecting its national security and territorial integrity, in accordance with international law, to be fully preserved. Experience over the past years has also shown that the strategy of combining threats with negotiations has neither altered the resolve of the Iranian nation nor achieved the US’ declared objectives. From this perspective, the latest threats are less a sign of strength than a reflection of the strategic crisis of an actor that has yet to find a sustainable path between continued confrontation and accepting the region’s new realities.
NOURNEWS