So far, there is no evidence that Iran possesses secret weapons. Those who claim that Iran has undisclosed weapons it has yet to use have not presented any proof of their existence, let alone their nature or capabilities.
اضافة اعلان
This line of thinking is common among analysts sympathetic to Tehran, as well as in popular opinion.
Both argue that it is inconceivable for Iran to endure such extensive military attacks and the destruction of its infrastructure including ports, civilian and military facilities, bridges, aircraft, and more unless it possesses a secret weapon it has deliberately chosen not to deploy.
According to this view, Iran is waiting for a critical moment when it can surprise the world with a decisive act of retaliation against various countries.
During a lunch gathering, an Arab diplomat told those present this writer among them that, according to his information, Iran possesses four nuclear bombs that it has not yet used.
In his view, this explains why the U.S.-Israeli military campaign has continued even after the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities, suggesting that Washington fears something beyond those reactors.
He went on to claim that, should the war intensify, Tehran might resort to using these weapons, or even chemical weapons allegedly developed in cooperation with China in previous years.
He further asserted that Iran has a substantial stockpile of such capabilities and is currently limiting itself to ballistic missiles and drones, only to unleash a far more surprising arsenal at a later stage.
There is no evidence to support any of these claims. They may simply be part of an effort to incite further action against Iran and reinforce its demonization in order to justify expanded military strikes, the destruction of the country, the seizure of its oil resources, the overthrow of its regime, and its eventual partition along with a broader restructuring of the Arab and Islamic region within the framework of what some describe as a project of regional "Israelization."
In times of war, all sides engage in various forms of black propaganda. Some narratives are designed to serve one side, while others aim to discredit the other. We need only recall the first Iraq war, when a sustained media campaign accused the Iraqi regime of possessing nuclear weapons to justify the invasion.
It was later established that much of the leaked intelligence had been manufactured as part of psychological and political warfare aimed at mobilizing public opinion against the regime, with little regard for the consequences of those falsehoods once the war was over.
Iran's predicament lies in two equally difficult choices. If it accepts a deal on American terms, it would effectively be surrendering and acknowledging defeat without gaining anything in return.
If it continues the war, it risks further destruction that could ultimately lead to the collapse of the regime. In either case, Tehran faces an enormous cost.
Its strongest remaining leverage today includes the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the ability to spread the economic and security costs of the conflict across the wider region, and the Israeli factor, as Israel may appear to avoid direct confrontation while remaining a central partner in the conflict.
Everyone is debating how this war might end, yet few consider the most dangerous scenario of all: that the conflict remains unresolved, leaving the region trapped in a prolonged inferno where every party pays the price and everyone ultimately loses.
As for the Arab diplomat's narrative, only time will determine whether it proves true or false. We can only wait.
