Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

    Wednesday, October 29, 2025   No comments

When President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s Burevestnik had completed a 15-hour, 14,000-kilometer flight, the message was unmistakable: Moscow had achieved what others abandoned decades ago—a nuclear-powered cruise missile capable of circling the globe. By marrying compact nuclear propulsion with stealthy, low-altitude flight, Burevestnik promises endurance beyond any conventional weapon and an ability to bypass existing missile defenses.

The implications are stark. Strategically, Burevestnik upends the logic of mutual deterrence. Its unpredictable trajectories compress warning times and could destabilize crisis decision-making. Legally, the missile sits in a treaty gray zone, likely outside New START’s limits, potentially igniting a new arms race in exotic propulsion and sensor-evading systems. Environmentally, it revives long-dormant fears of nuclear contamination should a test or mission fail.

For Moscow, Burevestnik symbolizes technological defiance and ensures that no adversary can strike Russia without risking annihilation in return. For the rest of the world, it is a reminder that the nuclear age is far from over—and that deterrence is entering a more volatile, less predictable phase, where the line between deterrence and disaster grows dangerously thin.

Putin's recent statements on this matter:

Putin stated that the "Burevestnik" has unconditional advantages, Russia can be proud of the achievements of scientists

The nuclear power part of the "Burevestnik" is 1000 times smaller than the nuclear reactor of a nuclear submarine with comparable power, Putin said.

He added that the nuclear reactor installed in the missile starts within minutes and seconds.

The nuclear technologies used in the "Burevestnik" will be used in the lunar program, Putin stated.

In addition, according to him, Russia will be able to apply these technologies in the national economy.

...

Given the fact that this is a new development and no information is in the public domain, here is an analysis that might shed some light and insight.

Russia and Iran Seal $25 Billion Nuclear Deal in the Shadow of Conflict

Russia and Iran Seal $25 Billion Nuclear Deal in the Shadow of Conflict

    Friday, September 26, 2025   No comments

In a move that signals a profound shift in the geopolitical landscape, Iran and Russia have signed a monumental $25 billion agreement to expand Iran’s nuclear energy program. The deal, coming just 15 weeks after a major US-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, is being interpreted by analysts as more than a simple commercial venture; it is a strategic gambit that likely includes unspoken security guarantees, effectively placing Iran’s nuclear ambitions under a Russian shield.

The Deal: A Massive Expansion of Nuclear Capacity

The agreement, signed between Iran’s Hormoz Energy Company and Russia’s state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, entails the construction of four new, advanced nuclear power plants in Iran’s southern Hormozgan province. The project, which will occupy a 500-hectare site, involves third-generation reactors, representing a significant technological leap. This deal is an execution of a memorandum of understanding signed days earlier in Moscow, highlighting the rapid pace of deepening ties between the two nations.

This expansion is in addition to Rosatom’s ongoing work completing the second and third units at the existing Bushehr nuclear power plant, solidifying Russia's role as the primary architect of Iran's civilian nuclear infrastructure.

Strategic Context: The Unspoken Security Guarantee

The timing and scale of this agreement cannot be divorced from the recent military confrontation. A 12-day war, initiated by a US and Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, demonstrated Tehran’s vulnerability to Western military action. However, one critical detail from that conflict has not gone unnoticed in world capitals: Russian-built facilities, namely the Bushehr power plant, were conspicuously spared from attack.

This selective targeting is widely believed to be a deliberate choice by the US and Israel to avoid a direct military confrontation with Russia. It underscored a stark reality: infrastructure under Moscow’s umbrella enjoys a level of protection that purely Iranian facilities do not. 

It is within this context that the new $25 billion deal must be viewed. While officially a "peaceful nuclear energy" project, the agreement almost certainly contains implicit, if not explicit, security understandings. By massively expanding its physical and financial stake in Iran’s nuclear program, Russia is raising the stakes for any future adversary.

An attack on these new facilities would not just be an attack on Iran; it would be an attack on a $25 billion Russian asset, potentially triggering a direct response from Moscow. This creates a powerful deterrent. The security guarantee may also manifest in the form of advanced Russian air defense technology, such as the S-400 system, specifically deployed to protect these sensitive sites.

Geopolitical Implications: A New Axis Solidifies

This deal represents a formalization of the Iran-Russia axis, which has been strengthening over years of shared opposition to Western foreign policy. For Russia, the agreement serves multiple strategic purposes:

• Economic Leverage: It injects billions into its state-owned nuclear industry, circumventing Western sanctions.
• Strategic Depth: It anchors Russian influence deep in the Middle East and the crucial Strait of Hormuz. 
• Deterrence Posturing: It signals to the West that Russia is willing to directly underwrite the security of US adversaries, complicating future military calculations.

For Iran, the benefits are equally clear. Beyond the energy independence the plants may provide, the deal offers a form of insulation from external military threats that it could not achieve on its own. In the wake of the recent attacks, securing this Russian "nuclear umbrella" for its facilities is a paramount strategic victory.

Beyond this deal...

The $25 billion nuclear deal between Moscow and Tehran is far more than an energy contract. It is a direct consequence of the recent conflict and a strategic response to it. By embedding its nuclear corporations ever deeper into Iranian soil, Russia is not just building power plants; it is constructing a geopolitical fortress. The unspoken message to the West is clear: any future strike on Iran’s nuclear program will have to calculate the high risk of striking a Russian target, fundamentally altering the calculus of confrontation in the Middle East. 

Media Review: Nuclear Talks Enter Critical Phase as Iran Holds Firm on Sovereignty

Media Review: Nuclear Talks Enter Critical Phase as Iran Holds Firm on Sovereignty

    Wednesday, June 04, 2025   No comments

Recent statements from both U.S. and Iranian leaders indicate that nuclear negotiations have reached a decisive turning point. The talks now stand at a crossroads: they will either collapse or move into a technical phase aimed at working out implementation details, following what appears to be the establishment of a preliminary framework for an agreement.

A central point that has emerged is that any potential deal will not deny Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. This position has been echoed in the latest remarks by top officials on both sides. Iran’s Supreme Leader has reinforced this stance, emphasizing that uranium enrichment is a matter of national sovereignty and national security. He also issued a fatwa prohibiting the development or possession of nuclear weapons, underscoring Iran’s declared commitment to peaceful nuclear energy.

These red lines—especially the right to enrichment—are seen as non-negotiable, rooted in Iran’s lack of trust toward the West based on previous experiences. As a result, any viable deal will likely have to respect these boundaries to move forward.

Iran's leader provides the reasoning behind Iran's right to Uranium enrichment 

“Now, in the nuclear industry, there is one key point that functions like the master key: Uranium enrichment.

Our enemies have fixated on this enrichment—they’ve put their finger exactly on this. A vast nuclear industry, without the ability to enrich uranium, is essentially useless. Why? Because for our power plants, we’d have to stretch out our hand and ask others for fuel.

It’s like having oil in your country but being forbidden from building refineries or producing gasoline—you have crude oil, but you have to buy gasoline from someone else. And that country might sell it to you at whatever price they wish—or they might just refuse altogether, making up an excuse. That’s how they behave.

Even if we had 100 nuclear reactors, without enrichment, they’d be useless—because nuclear power plants require fuel. If we can’t produce that fuel ourselves, we’d have to go begging to the US, and they might set dozens of conditions just to give us fuel.

We already experienced this in the 2000s, when we needed 20% enriched uranium. The US president at the time sent 2 heads of state—so-called friends—to act as intermediaries and told us: ‘Give us part of your 3.5% enriched uranium, and we’ll give you the 20% fuel you need.’ Our officials agreed, and an exchange was planned.

I said the exchange must be done like this: They bring the 20% enriched fuel to Bandar Abbas, we test it to ensure it’s genuine, and then we hand over the 3.5% in return. When they saw that we were serious and insistent on inspecting the 20% fuel first, they backed out of the deal and broke their promise.

Meanwhile, amid all this political back-and-forth, our scientists produced the 20% enriched uranium domestically, right here inside this country. 

... 

Iran is a strong nation, an independent nation. Our nuclear industry is one of the most advanced in the world, and we employ thousands of scientists, researchers, and other workers. Should we give all of this up? Should we make all of them jobless? Are we insane?

You [United States] have nuclear capabilities. You have atomic bombs. You possess devastating weapons. 

What right do you have to question whether the Iranian nation should have nuclear enrichment or not, or a nuclear industry or not? We are a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide our own future. It has nothing to do with you. This is the principle of our independence.

The latest American proposal is 100% against our doctrine and against our positions.

From here on, I pledge to the Iranian nation, with the help of God, we will strengthen our national power as much as we can."

  

After the statement by the Iranian leader, the foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, issued his own declaration on X:

"There is a reason why only a few nations master the ability to fuel nuclear reactors. Apart from significant financial resources and political vision, it requires a solid industrial base and a technological-academic complex that can produce necessary human resources and know-how. Iran has paid dearly for these capabilities, and there is no scenario in which we will give up on the patriots who made our dream come true. To reiterate: No enrichment, no deal. No nuclear wrapons, we have a deal."

Media review: What if Iranians, Americans and Arabs made uranium together?

Media review: What if Iranians, Americans and Arabs made uranium together?

    Saturday, May 17, 2025   No comments

 President Donald Trump, still touring the Middle East, keeps saying how “very happy” he’d be if he could make a deal with Iran. Iran, meanwhile, needs such a deal to avoid being bombed by Israel and strangled economically by the resumption of United Nations sanctions later this year.

If reports out of Tehran are correct, those pressures may have motivated Iranian leaders to come up with an unconventional idea that deserves a hearing: They want to work with their enemies, not against them, to build Iran’s nuclear programme.

Their brainstorm envisions a kind of joint venture among Iranians, Saudis and Emiratis, as well as private investors including US companies. This new consortium would enrich uranium, a fissile material that can be used to generate electricity or make medical isotopes – and to build nuclear bombs. Because Iranians, Arabs, Americans and others would be working together, it would be easy to verify that this atomic programme remains civilian rather than military.

At first blush, the idea seems outlandish. How could mortal enemies (Tehran’s theocracy is based in large part on wishing death to America as well as Israel) collaborate around the very material that has brought them to the brink of war?

At second glance, though, the notion’s sheer audacity – let’s call it chutzpah – may be exactly what these nuclear negotiations need to get unstuck.

AN ELEGANT IDEA

In a way, the Iranian proposal reminds me of the European Coal and Steel Community, set up in 1951 by six founding nations and led by France and Germany, who had fought three bitter wars in one lifetime and struggled to imagine each other as anything other than enemies.

To prevent a fourth war, French statesmen such as Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman proposed joint custody over the raw materials of warfare – at the time, coal and steel. And German leaders such as Konrad Adenauer, eager to reconcile with their neighbours, agreed. Against all odds, this ECSC would blossom into what is today the European Union.

Continue reading the article >>

Media review: Understanding Blinken's assessment of when Iran will produce a nuclear bomb and Haniyeh's assassination

Media review: Understanding Blinken's assessment of when Iran will produce a nuclear bomb and Haniyeh's assassination

    Friday, August 16, 2024   No comments

What do media reports and political statements about state-sanctioned assassinations and the war in Gaza mean in the big picture?

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced, Friday July 19th, that Iran is capable of producing fissile material for a nuclear bomb "within a week or two."

Blinken said during a forum in Colorado (west) that "the current situation is not good. Iran, because of the end of the nuclear agreement, instead of being at least a year away from being able to produce fissile material for a nuclear bomb, is now probably a week or two away from being able to do so."

He explained that Tehran "has not developed a weapon yet, but we are watching this matter closely, of course."

Blinken reiterated that "a week or two" is the estimated time for Iran to be able to produce this fissile material for the purpose of making a nuclear bomb.

He said, "What we have seen in recent weeks and months is that Iran is moving forward with this" nuclear program, reiterating the United States' goal of Tehran never having a nuclear weapon, and "preferring the diplomatic path" to achieve this.

CNN, which reported the same news explained breakout time as being "the amount of time needed to produce enough weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon – “is now probably one or two weeks” as Tehran has continued to develop its nuclear program."

The US government statement was made about a month ago, July 18. If that assessment is correct, not only did Iran has more than two weeks to reach that goal, but also was given more reasons to achieve that goal when Israel carried out an attack inside Iran on 31 July 2024, that killed Hamas leader, Ismael Haniyeh who was attending the inauguration of the new president. Blinken assessment is significant for many reasons, including these two important reasons.

If US assessment is true, and given the recent development, by Wednesday August 14th, Iran would have had two weeks since the assassination, above and beyond the two weeks between Blinken's statement and the assassination, which is more than the time it needs to reach the stage per US government.  This means that, now, Iran is past the breakout time, and would have enough "weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon". 

If Iran does not produce "weapons grade material" then US assessment is flawed about Iran's ability or wrong about its intention to do so. 

In both cases, this recent development is bad news for Western governments because their next news cycle will be to address Iran with the reality of it possessing the nuclear material or having it and choosing not to build a nuclear weapons. In both cases, the nuclear threat would have moved past it being a threat, since it will be either a reality or a non-threat.

In the light of the nuclear development matter, Iran's delayed retaliation against Israel for the assassination of a Palestinian political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, could be the most strategic response. Iran would have used the timeline floated by high-ranking US official about the breakout time to either make it irrelevant or to create more uncertainty about Iran's capabilities.

The delay froze any conversation about Iran's nuclear program and perhaps allowed the Iranian leaders to add the nuclear option just in case Israel decides to retaliate against Iran's retaliation. Iran does not have to announce that they have a nuclear weapon at this point; Iran could adopt Israel’s strategic ambiguity about its nuclear capability and that would produce the same deterring effects as announcing that it has a nuclear weapon.

Taken in a broader context, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, in effect, was the best thing that could have happened for Iran for many reasons.

First, Iran now has the legal and moral ground to act on the principle of self-defense.

Second, by holding official religious prayers for the dead Sunni leader, Iran’s brand of Islam, Shia Islam, is no longer a fringe belief, as it has been portrayed by Saudi Salafists. The fact that Hamas leaders agreed to have two formal prayers, one in Tehran and one in Qatar, is remarkable in the view of experts on Sunni-Shia divide.

Third, Iran’s menu of retaliatory options has become more expansive. Iran could strike inside the 1948 border of Israel, since the attack on Haniyeh took place in Tehran. But Iran could hit targets and military concentrations in Gaza, which will highlight the above stated connections, and refocus attention on the primary objective that most governments around the world want to achieve: a ceasefire in Gaza War. Also, Iran could use a surgical strike against an Israeli leader or a military installation. Lastly, Iran’s leaders could forgo a military tactical strike in favor of a strategic decision to adopt a different nuclear posture and use the assassination as a justification for developing a last resort self-defense nuclear option, something it has been unable to do in the past.

When considered from these advantage points, it is clear that assassination is the least strategic statecraft tool, as it tends to diminish the standing and reputation of the state that rely on assassinations and bolster the strategic position of the state whose sovereignty has been violated--long-term. For these reasons, this event may end up being one of the most significant turning points of the century. 

  

Russia’s space nuclear weapon that does kill people but can paralyze global communication; what else can it do?

Russia’s space nuclear weapon that does kill people but can paralyze global communication; what else can it do?

    Sunday, February 18, 2024   No comments

The American newspaper "The New York Times" revealed concerns within the Biden administration after intelligence reports indicating that Russia was preparing to place a nuclear weapon in space. These concerns prompted US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to ask China and India to try to talk with Russia.

The newspaper says that American spy and intelligence agencies have discovered that Russia is working on a new type of space weapon that could threaten the thousands of satellites that keep the world connected, and that a launch is being prepared from Moscow to install a “nuclear weapon” in space that would cause a global catastrophe.

It is true that this weapon will not cause the destruction of humans, such as what would happen when used on Earth, but it will destroy satellites scattered in their various orbits, which will cause the collapse of global communications systems, and make everything from emergency services to cell phones to the regulation of generators and pumps It malfunctions, according to estimates by US agencies.

The newspaper adds: Debris resulting from the explosion will spread throughout low Earth orbit and make navigation difficult if not impossible for everything from Starlink satellites, used for Internet communications, to spy satellites.

US intelligence agencies believe that even if Russia were to place a nuclear weapon in orbit, US officials agree in their assessment that the weapon would not be detonated, but would remain like a time bomb in low orbit, as a reminder from Putin that if he was subjected to pressure sanctions or military resistance to his ambitions in Ukraine or elsewhere, it may destroy the economies of countries without targeting humans on the ground, according to what was reported by the New York Times.

The newspaper said that these estimates prompted US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to talk about them with his Chinese and Indian counterparts during the Munich Security Conference, which is currently underway.

 “Blinken’s message to China and India was clear: any nuclear explosion in space would destroy not only American satellites, but also those in Beijing and New Delhi,” the newspaper reports.

 Washington is counting on Beijing and New Delhi to exert the necessary pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin, because the latter despises Washington and does not accept its intervention, especially since the escalation of tensions between the two sides since the invasion of Ukraine.

 Some intelligence officials have objected to sharing much of what the United States knows because details of the Russian program remain top secret, US officials said.

 But others argued that the United States needed to share enough to convince China and India of the seriousness of the threat.

 During the Munich meetings, the two men (the foreign ministers of China and India) took in the information, and the former repeated China's usual phrases about the importance of the peaceful use of outer space, the officials said.

 Representative Michael Waltz, Republican of Florida and a member of the House Intelligence Council, said: “Relying on our biggest adversary to deliver messages to Moscow is not a great exercise, but in this case, if the reports are true, China will have a special interest in getting the message across.”

Israeli media report: Iran can produce 7 nuclear bombs within 3 months and has enough enriched uranium to produce 6 more bombs within a few months

Israeli media report: Iran can produce 7 nuclear bombs within 3 months and has enough enriched uranium to produce 6 more bombs within a few months

    Thursday, June 01, 2023   No comments

Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper quoted experts as saying that Iran can manufacture a nuclear bomb within 12 days, and has enough enriched uranium to produce 6 more bombs within a few months, “but this does not mean that it intends to do so and become a nuclear state.”

Yedioth said under the headline, “Iran has enough fissile material to make 7 atomic bombs in 3 months,” and that a week after revealing Iran’s progress in building a nuclear site that might be immune to bunker-busting bombs, and 5 years after the withdrawal of the former US president, Donald Trump, from the nuclear deal, an American nuclear expert estimates that Iran has the immediate ability to produce an atomic bomb, and if it used all its stock of enriched uranium, it could produce 7 bombs within a few months.

The American nuclear expert, David Albright, told the British magazine “The Economist” that satellite images show tunnels digging in the mountains near the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran, which may be at a depth of between 80 and 100 meters underground, which makes the mission of the GBU bombs difficult. -57, the main weapon of the US Army for the destruction of underground bunkers down to a depth of 60 meters.

Physicist Albright, the former chief US nuclear weapons inspector, estimated that the innermost part of the site could be used as a hall containing a small number of advanced centrifuges, which could quickly produce enough enriched uranium to the 90% level needed to produce a nuclear weapon.

The newspaper pointed out that the 2015 nuclear deal stipulates that Iran be a year away from producing enough material to make a bomb, but experts estimate that it may be able to do so immediately, and Albright believes that Tehran can enrich uranium by 90% required to produce a nuclear weapon within 12 years. just a day. To do this, it would need only three consecutive sets of advanced centrifuges and half of its current stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%.

In addition, according to estimates, Iran could enrich its uranium stockpile to the level of 90% to produce four atomic bombs within a month, and within another two months, use the low-enriched uranium to obtain material for two more bombs.