Basically, the problem with the Islamic Republic on the nuclear issue is not on moral grounds, to say that the Islamic Republic has no moral obligation; rather, the problem is that we are a member of the Convention on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is because of our commitment to membership in the Convention that we are being challenged. In terms of knowledge and moral obligation, legal prohibition cannot be proven. Countries around the world have committed themselves to organizing a certain amount of their behavior in the form of a treaty. The problems they are having with us are because of this treaty and have nothing to do with moral debates.

Although Dr. Mahmud Hekmatnia is more famous for his scientific efforts on intellectual property rights than any other legal fields, he is also an expert and has written in other legal fields. One of these fields is nuclear jurisprudence and law, whose article was presented at the Nuclear Jurisprudence Conference and was also published in the book of conference papers. We talked to him about the jurisprudential and legal dimensions of using nuclear energy. The teacher at the Center for Islamic Culture and Thought believes that the West’s problem with a nuclear Iran is not a moral or philosophical issue; rather, it is due to a treaty that the Islamic Republic has joined. The details of the exclusive conversation on contemporary jurisprudence with a member of the Supreme Scientific Council of the Center for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies are as follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the primary ruling on the use of nuclear energy?

Mr. Hekmat-Niya: It seems that the question is not correct in this form; because if nuclear energy is meant to be knowledge of it, then there is no problem with its use, although it may involve unknown dangers that, since these dangers have not been proven, we cannot say that it is prohibited; therefore, there is no problem with the use of nuclear knowledge at all unless it brings harm that has not yet been proven.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the use of weapons of mass destruction forbidden? What is the ruling on the manufacture, possession, and purchase and sale of these weapons?

Mr. Hekmat-Niya: We must separate two discussions. One is nuclear weapons and the other is weapons of mass destruction. Regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction, we have a rule about war called the principle of separation; meaning that a distinction must be made between those who fight on the battlefield and those who do not fight on the battlefield. Since weapons of mass destruction target both military and civilian populations, they violate this rule and principle and violate this law. That is, in the nature of weapons of mass destruction, there is this disregard for the principle of separation between military and civilian, and individuals cannot be classified and divided during their use. Furthermore, nuclear weapons of mass destruction also have destructive effects on the future of humanity. These two points exist in relation to weapons of mass destruction. The Supreme Leader also considers their use to be corruption and absolutely illegitimate, considering these two principles. But if no one believes in their use, then, as a rule, the preparations for it are also meaningless. The only argument that exists is that today, weapons of mass destruction are considered as a deterrent, since they are in the possession of a limited number of countries, even if they do not use them; therefore, in terms of moral obligation, it must be said that these weapons should not be kept; But in relation to others who may not accept these principles or believe that these weapons are powerful, help to contain and control rivals and enemies, reduce their evil or prevent them from using such weapons, and in general, having these types of weapons in this world full of evil causes a balance of power, the discussion becomes a little difficult and complicated; because we cannot easily ignore these points and rule out permissibility.

In any case, assuming that we consider this direction as a reason for maintaining or producing weapons of mass destruction, the question arises: what should be done if others who prepare and maintain these types of weapons did not have that moral obligation? The enemy produces and maintains these types of weapons even if he does not use them and says that he will not use them; but as a factor that causes fear, they are always there. Given this, should we also have this fear and intimidation factor, even if it is not right in terms of our moral commitment? That fear and intimidation has nothing to do with moral commitment or non-commitment, but rather with reality. The reality is that some countries that cannot be trusted at all have this technology and are able to target military and civilian personnel by using it, and the only way to force them not to use it is to have, like them, a means of intimidation and fear, that is, having and being able to use such a weapon; because what creates reassurance and peace is having this tool, not the other party’s commitment and agreement not to use it. It is like someone standing with a sword above their head and saying, “You should not be afraid because I will not use this sword.”Even if they make a commitment not to use it, this commitment will never create peace and security for the other party; because the mere fact that the sword is in their hand is itself a factor of fear. The same is true of nuclear weapons; that is, even if we say that we do not use them, we should not have them; but we must also pay attention to the external reality and the type of possible action of the other side. Considering these points, it seems that a big question mark should be placed here.

Another issue is the environmental aspect of these weapons, which has nothing to do with their description as “mass destruction”; because a weapon may not be mass destruction but cause environmental destruction. In this case, the issue must be examined from the perspective of long-term destructive effects on the environment. In jurisprudential discussions, we have that in jihad, those who are not victims are exceptions; such as children, women, the elderly, and other civilians who should not be attacked. These rules also apply to nuclear weapons.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the possibility of using nuclear energy in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, can we conclude that a certain level of enrichment is forbidden, or is enrichment in itself permissible to any extent, and what is forbidden is the manufacture of a nuclear bomb?

Mr. Hekmat-Niya: Knowledge has no fixed limits, and no one can limit it; But since this knowledge is associated with security threats to others, what is at issue is the principle of understanding it, not having the weapon produced by that knowledge; meaning that acquiring this knowledge and capability, in itself, causes fear in the enemy, even if you have pledged not to use it. Here, it seems that frightening another is relevant and should be considered in light of the field realities.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the international sensitivities surrounding Iran’s nuclear issues, can we conclude that it is necessary to ignore energy production in this way?

Mr. Hekmatnia: The discussion here is that basically, the problem with the Islamic Republic on the nuclear issue is not a moral problem, saying that the Islamic Republic has no moral obligation; rather, the problem is that we are a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is because of our commitment to membership in the convention that we are having problems. In terms of moral obligation, a legal prohibition cannot be proven.  The countries of the world have committed themselves, based on a treaty, to regulate a certain amount of their behavior within the framework of the treaty. The problems they face with us are because of this treaty and have nothing to do with moral debates. They have no jurisprudential or philosophical debate with us. So we have an international problem in implementing the treaty, which is a debate, and since we are members of the IAEA, we must resolve this debate within the IAEA. But one debate is whether its prohibition can be proven in terms of moral and legal requirements? It seems that the answer to this question is negative. We cannot conclude from this that nuclear knowledge is prohibited. What exists now is a treaty prohibition, not a moral or legal prohibition.