WANA (Nov 04) – If nuclear power was not a deterrent, Europe, the United States, and Israel would not oppose Iran’s nuclearization.

 

The theory of dynamic jurisprudence is on par with hermeneutic analysis of phenomena and objective realities, and the theory of balance of power is an accepted and obvious principle in deterrence.

 

A discursive analysis of Iran’s Supreme Leader’s recent statement—where he emphasized that “in confronting arrogance, we will absolutely do everything necessary to prepare the Iranian nation, including militarily and in terms of armaments”—suggests that the Leader’s message conveys the need to repel evil and hints at equipping the Islamic Republic of Iran with what the enemy possesses.

 

 

If my analysis holds true, it affirms the theory of dynamic jurisprudence. This theory is tightly bound to the demands of the times.

 

Rational and religious imperatives point to the self-evident fact that Iran must secure equivalent armaments for defense and deterrence against the malign force known as Zionist Jewry.

 

From the perspective of political science, building and using a nuclear bomb might be considered as a single concept, but in religious jurisprudence, they can be distinct: “Constructing does not necessarily equate to using; it serves as deterrence.”

 

 

If the Islamic Republic of Iran lacks nuclear deterrence, there remains little doubt that Israel would not hesitate to pose an actual threat.

 

Furthermore, where Israel can annihilate millions of innocent lives with nuclear weapons without shedding a drop of Jewish blood, what other element besides the principle of dynamic jurisprudence could safeguard humanity and the Islamic Republic of Iran against nuclear domination?