Introduction

Few contemporary foreign policy challenges embody the entanglement of ideology and strategy as vividly as Iran’s nuclear program. Since its covert facilities at Natanz and Arak were exposed in 2002, Iran has been at the center of a fraught international debate about proliferation, sanctions, and the prospects for regional war. Much of the scholarly and policy literature has treated Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a matter of technical capability, realist deterrence, or domestic bargaining. Less often examined, however, is the way antisemitism pervades the Islamic Republic’s nuclear discourse.

From the early days of the revolution, Iranian leaders have situated the nuclear issue within a cosmic struggle against Zionism. Technical debates about centrifuge cascades or enrichment levels are not simply presented as questions of national sovereignty or development. Instead, they are infused with a narrative that Israel and “world Jewry” seek to keep Muslims scientifically backward, while manipulating global institutions to prevent Iran’s rise. This framing is more than rhetorical excess. It constitutes a durable ideological framework through which the regime explains its nuclear ambitions, mobilizes domestic audiences, and resists international compromise.

This article traces the roots and functions of antisemitism in Iran’s nuclear discourse. It argues that antisemitism is not incidental to the nuclear issue but integral: it serves as a resource for domestic legitimation, a marker of regional identity, and a barrier to diplomatic resolution.

Historical Foundations: Antisemitism in Iranian Political Thought

Although antisemitism in Iran has older antecedents, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 provided the most fertile soil for its politicization. Under the Qajars and Pahlavis, Jews were a recognized minority, protected but also stigmatized, often subject to social prejudice. By the mid-twentieth century, Iranian intellectuals influenced by European fascist and Islamist currents began to incorporate antisemitic tropes into their critique of Western imperialism. Pamphlets circulated alleging Jewish control of finance and media, and translations of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion found receptive audiences.

Ayatollah Khomeini absorbed these narratives and gave them theological legitimacy. In his sermons and writings, Israel was not just a colonial outpost but an extension of Jewish conspiracy. He frequently referred to the “usurping Zionist regime” as a cancer implanted in the Muslim body. The revolution institutionalized this hostility: Iran cut ties with Israel, transferred the Israeli embassy in Tehran to the Palestine Liberation Organization, and embedded opposition to Zionism into its constitution.

From the outset, then, antisemitism was not peripheral but foundational to the Islamic Republic’s political identity. It provided a language of resistance and a convenient external enemy against which to measure ideological purity.

The Marriage of Antisemitism and Nuclear Ambition

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology began under the Shah with Western assistance, but after 1979 it was reframed as a project of Islamic self-reliance. By the 1980s, as Iran fought the devastating war with Iraq, nuclear know-how was valorized as proof that Islam could master modern science. Here, antisemitism entered the nuclear discourse: leaders insisted that Israel and its allies sought to keep Muslims scientifically subordinate.

By the 1990s, as clandestine enrichment work expanded, official rhetoric increasingly cast Israel as the architect of global opposition. Iranian newspapers carried cartoons of hook-nosed Jews pulling the strings of Washington and the International Atomic Energy Agency. In Friday sermons, clerics argued that the nuclear program symbolized not only national pride but also defiance of Zionist hegemony.

The nuclear file thus became saturated with antisemitic motifs: every technical objection raised by Western negotiators could be dismissed as evidence of Jewish manipulation.

Ahmadinejad and the Fusion of Holocaust Denial with Nuclear Defiance

The presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005–2013) marked the apogee of this discourse. Ahmadinejad’s public denial of the Holocaust as a “myth” coincided with Iran’s acceleration of enrichment activities. He frequently argued that Israel invoked the Holocaust to prevent Muslims from advancing scientifically.

Two themes recurred in his speeches:

1. Delegitimizing Jewish Suffering: By denying or relativizing the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad sought to erode the moral foundation of Israel’s opposition to Iranian nuclearization. If the Holocaust were a fabrication, then Jewish fears of annihilation were illegitimate
2. Casting Zionism as the Source of Sanctions: Ahmadinejad repeatedly claimed that international sanctions were not genuinely about proliferation but were imposed at Israel’s behest. The narrative was simple: Iran was not being punished for violating treaties, but because Jews wished to keep Muslims weak.

Holocaust denial thus fused seamlessly with nuclear defiance. The rejection of historical truth became a political weapon, mobilizing domestic support while taunting Western negotiators.

Khamenei and the Enduring Language of Annihilation

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been less flamboyant than Ahmadinejad but no less consistent. He has called Israel a “cancerous tumor” that must be eradicated. In speeches about nuclear policy, he identifies Israel as the driving force behind sabotage operations and sanctions. For Khamenei, Zionism is not a mere adversary but a metaphysical enemy: a malevolent force responsible for Iran’s suffering and for global injustice.

This framing is replicated across state institutions. Textbooks emphasize Jewish plots to keep Muslims backward. Media cartoons portray Israel as a spider controlling Western capitals. Religious sermons link nuclear self-sufficiency to the Qur’anic imperative of resisting oppression. Antisemitism thus permeates every layer of the nuclear discourse, from elite speeches to popular culture.

Antisemitism as Strategic Resource

Why has the regime so consistently infused its nuclear discourse with antisemitism? Three strategic functions stand out:

1. Domestic Legitimacy: Antisemitism provides a convenient scapegoat for economic hardship and political repression. Sanctions, inflation, and diplomatic isolation are explained as products of a Zionist conspiracy rather than regime mismanagement. This allows leaders to deflect blame and rally nationalist sentiment.
2. Regional Positioning: By casting itself as the vanguard against Zionism, Iran claims leadership of the Muslim world. Nuclear defiance becomes a badge of honor, distinguishing Iran from Arab regimes that have normalized ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords. In this way, antisemitism is a currency of regional legitimacy.
3. Diplomatic Hardening: Framing negotiations as battles against Zionist control makes compromise appear as capitulation. Even technical concessions are interpreted as betrayal of the ummah. Antisemitism thus constrains flexibility, ensuring that ideological purity trumps pragmatic diplomacy.

Security Dilemmas and Escalatory Risks

The antisemitic framing of the nuclear issue exacerbates regional security dilemmas. For Israel, Iran’s rhetoric is not empty bluster but existential threat. When Iranian leaders deny the Holocaust while promising to erase Israel from the map, Israeli policymakers interpret nuclear advances through the lens of potential annihilation. This perception narrows Israel’s strategic options and increases the likelihood of pre-emptive strikes.

For the United States and European negotiators, the antisemitic discourse complicates diplomacy. Any insistence on verification or limits can be dismissed within Iran as evidence of Zionist influence. Trust is eroded, and domestic hardliners gain the upper hand.

Institutionalization of Antisemitism

Unlike some regimes that deploy antisemitism opportunistically, Iran has institutionalized it. School curricula, mosque sermons, media organs, and revolutionary institutions reproduce antisemitic tropes systematically. This institutionalization means that even pragmatic leaders cannot fully escape the discourse. When President Hassan Rouhani sought moderation during the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), state media continued to depict Zionist conspiracies behind Western demands.

The result is structural rigidity: antisemitism is not an occasional flourish but a framework that shapes how elites and citizens alike interpret nuclear policy.

Gender and Social Dimensions

An underexplored dimension is how antisemitic nuclear discourse intersects with gender politics. State propaganda often portrays the nuclear struggle as a defense of Muslim families and women against Zionist corruption. In this way, antisemitism reinforces patriarchal control: protecting women from imagined Jewish threats becomes a justification for limiting their freedoms. The nuclear issue thus links geopolitics with domestic social conservatism.

Global Reverberations

Iran’s antisemitic nuclear discourse does not remain confined to its borders. Allied regimes such as Syria and Venezuela echo Tehran’s language. Diaspora networks and sympathetic intellectuals reproduce these narratives in academic and activist circles. On social media, antisemitic conspiracies about Israel orchestrating sanctions or assassinations circulate widely, often converging with far-right European tropes about Jewish control of finance and media. This transnational diffusion illustrates how antisemitism functions as connective tissue between otherwise disparate ideological movements.

Comparative Perspective

Iran’s use of antisemitism in nuclear discourse can be compared to other historical cases where conspiracy theories legitimated militarization. Nazi Germany famously portrayed Jews as orchestrators of war to justify rearmament. In the Arab Cold War, regimes used antisemitism to mobilize publics for confrontation with Israel. Yet Iran is distinctive: antisemitism is not episodic but constitutionally enshrined, a permanent lens through which national projects—including the nuclear program—are interpreted.

Conclusion

Iran’s nuclear discourse cannot be understood without recognizing its antisemitic foundations. From Khomeini’s revolutionary sermons to Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and Khamenei’s calls for Israel’s eradication, the nuclear file has been consistently cast as a battle against Jewish conspiracy. Antisemitism serves as domestic scapegoat, regional credential, and diplomatic straitjacket.

For policymakers, the implication is sobering. Technical solutions—inspection regimes, enrichment limits, sanctions relief—cannot by themselves resolve the nuclear impasse, because the problem is not only material but ideological. As long as antisemitism remains embedded in the Islamic Republic’s political DNA, the nuclear issue will continue to resist compromise, destabilize the region, and fuel global antisemitism.