The Trump administration’s renewed focus on reviving the U.S. nuclear industry has once again exposed the deep contradiction between the West’s official narrative of “clean and sustainable energy” and its political treatment of independent countries—a contradiction in which nuclear energy is deemed legitimate for some and criminal for others.

In recent weeks, during a visit to one of America’s nuclear power plants, the U.S. Secretary of Energy announced that a “nuclear energy renaissance in the United States” is one of the main pillars of Donald Trump’s plan to revitalize the country’s energy capacity. He emphasized that rebuilding nuclear infrastructure could increase electricity generation, reduce energy costs for citizens, and guarantee U.S. energy security for decades to come.

These remarks come at a time when the United States, like many European countries, is facing growing energy challenges: rising electricity demand, the rapid expansion of AI-driven consumption, and increasing pressure on aging power grids. From the perspective of Western policymakers, a return to nuclear energy is no longer a luxury choice, but a strategic necessity.

The reality is that nuclear energy—regardless of political rhetoric—is one of the most stable and cost-effective sources of energy in the long run. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power plants are not heavily dependent on volatile global markets, provide steady output, and generate far less pollution compared to coal and gas.

This is precisely why the United States, European countries, and even the Israeli regime have long relied on nuclear energy not only for electricity generation, but also to consolidate their strategic positions. Within this framework, nuclear energy is defined for them as “essential,” “advanced,” and “life-sustaining”—a tool for development, prosperity, and power.

Double standards: From electricity to the bomb

Yet these same countries, while promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy for themselves, also possess the world’s largest nuclear weapons arsenals. The United States, France, and the United Kingdom—core members of the nuclear club—and the Israeli regime as an unofficial but well-known nuclear weapons holder, together possess thousands of nuclear warheads, many of them outside any meaningful oversight and without transparent adherence to the commitments of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Within this mindset, not only is nuclear electricity production permitted for these states, but the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction is also justified as “legitimate deterrence.” At the same time, these very actors portray other countries’ access to the same technology as a threat to international security, assuming the role of self-appointed guardians of the world. The best example in this regard is Iran. 

Over the past two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been subjected to some of the most stringent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Official IAEA reports have repeatedly stated that there is no credible evidence indicating any diversion of Iran’s nuclear program toward the production of nuclear weapons. Agency inspectors have continuously visited Iranian nuclear facilities and the outcome of these inspections has consistently confirmed the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities.

Nevertheless, in Western political and media narratives, Iran is portrayed not as a country pursuing scientific development, but as a “nuclear threat.” This narrative—disregarding official documents and technical reports—has become a tool to justify pressure, sanctions, threats, and even military action.

One of the darkest aspects of this approach has been the systematic assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists over past decades. This did not stop there: in an unprecedented move, the same baseless allegations were used as a pretext for a direct attack on Iran, resulting in a 12-day war. Regardless of the outcome—despite the attackers’ failure to achieve their objectives and their eventual withdrawal—their assault and the killing of innocent Iranians, including women, children, the elderly, and the young, as well as the destruction of homes, under the hollow claim of “legitimate targets,” has no justification under any human rights standard.

Many scientists were labeled legitimate targets and assassinated. These scientists were not working on weapons, but in fields such as radiopharmaceutical production, nuclear medicine, and the treatment of incurable diseases.

A clear example Is the martyred scientist Seyyed Amirhossein Faqhi, who was assassinated during the 12-day war. He was among researchers whose primary focus was the development of radiopharmaceuticals and cancer treatment using nuclear technologies—knowledge that could have saved the lives of thousands of patients. The assassination of such individuals is not a defense of global security, but a direct attack on science, public health, and the progress of a nation.

The core issue: Energy or independence?

When these realities are viewed together, the central question becomes unavoidable: is the West’s problem with Iran and other independent countries truly nuclear energy, or is it independence itself? Where does the problem lie when a country, relying on its own scientists and indigenous capabilities, acquires a technology that reduces its dependence on systems of domination?

Domestic development of nuclear technology means lower energy production costs, self-sufficiency in medicine, neutralizing medical sanctions, and overcoming manufactured energy crises. This is precisely the point that becomes intolerable for Western powers—where science escapes monopoly and independence shifts from a slogan to a reality.

What we see today in the West’s approach toward Iran and similar countries is nothing but the continuation of the same old colonial mindset, now dressed in modern language. Modern colonialism is no longer necessarily defined by military occupation, but by controlling knowledge, technology, and the path of nations’ development.
The logic governing this approach is clear: development under our supervision and in line with our interests—or deprivation, sanctions, and pressure. A world in which certain powers still see themselves as its rightful owners and view others’ progress as a threat to their preferred order.

In such a world, nuclear energy is neither inherently dangerous nor inherently peaceful; it is the will of nations that gives it meaning. And perhaps it is precisely this independent will—more than any bomb—that has disturbed the sleep of those who seek domination.