The death of Dr. Akbar Etemad, widely recognized as the founding architect of Iran’s nuclear program, has reignited debate over the trajectory of Tehran’s atomic ambitions at a time when global focus is again fixed on preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapon capabilities. Etemad died at his home in Paris on April 11, 2025, aged 95, just one day before new international negotiations on Iran’s nuclear activities were set to open in Oman—a confluence of events underscoring both the unresolved nature and gravity of the Iranian nuclear challenge.
Etemad’s career was emblematic of Iran’s complex relationship with nuclear energy. Appointed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the early 1970s to head the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Etemad was charged with launching a civilian nuclear program. Backed at the time by Western allies aiming to establish Iran as a technological vanguard in the region, the initiative was marked by international partnerships and ambitious infrastructure building. But the Islamic Revolution of 1979 saw Etemad, with close personal ties to the Shah, flee Iran for exile in Paris. The new theocratic regime inherited the nuclear foundations he built but reoriented them under the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—an entity later designated as a terrorist organization by much of the international community.
The regime’s transformation of the program from civilian energy research to a suspected pursuit of weaponization remains the central concern for Israel and its Western partners. Over recent years, repeated violations of international agreements and an expanding field of proxy violence, orchestrated by the IRGC across the Middle East, have heightened those concerns. Israeli intelligence assessments warn that Iran’s growing uranium enrichment—well beyond civilian needs—has brought the regime dangerously close to a nuclear weapons “breakout” capability, a scenario Israeli leaders have declared intolerable.
Etemad’s passing was met with notable, and perhaps paradoxical, eulogies from the Islamic Republic’s leadership. Despite his close association with the overthrown monarchy, Iranian officials praised Etemad’s technical legacy, seeking to cast today’s nuclear program as the culmination of a nationalist vision that predates—and transcends—the 1979 revolution. Observers point out, however, that Etemad spent his years in exile warning against the dangers of nuclear proliferation in the hands of extremists, a message the Islamic Republic has studiously ignored.
The international talks in Oman come at a critical juncture. The collapse of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, United States sanctions under President Donald Trump, and Iranian stonewalling of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections have all contributed to deep skepticism among Israeli and Western officials. In Jerusalem, policymakers argue that only robust deterrence, including the credible threat of military action, can prevent Tehran from crossing the nuclear threshold.
The Israeli perspective on Iranian nuclearization is shaped by more than history. The events of October 7, 2023, remain seared in the Israeli consciousness. That day, Iranian-supplied Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel and perpetrated the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust, with documented atrocities including mass executions, sexual violence, and the abduction of Israeli civilians. Israel’s military response, Operation Iron Swords, was undertaken in self-defense and in the context of a broader war imposed by Iran and its regional proxies, including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and affiliated factions in Syria and Iraq. For Israeli leaders, a nuclear-armed Iran would embolden the “axis of resistance,” making terror attacks vastly more lethal and destabilizing.
Tehran’s nuclear pursuits have had a destabilizing ripple effect throughout the Middle East. The IRGC’s strategy—which fuses ideological ambition with arms transfers and paramilitary operations—has forged alliances with designated terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. These forces, acting as extensions of Iranian policy, have launched rockets at Israeli towns, conducted cross-border attacks, and threatened maritime security. The IRGC’s Quds Force specializes in this asymmetrical warfare, converging Iran’s nuclear ambitions with regional violence.
Western diplomats involved in the Oman talks seek to contain this growing danger, but Israeli officials remain wary. While some Arab states have sought security partnership with Israel—demonstrated through the Abraham Accords—the persistent gaps in international enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s record of subversion give little cause for optimism. Calls for permanent, intrusive inspections and binding enforcement mechanisms are central to Israel’s diplomatic position.
The passing of Akbar Etemad thus invites renewed scrutiny not only of Iran’s nuclear program, but of the regime’s broader intentions and methods. For Israel, neither Etemad’s technical achievements nor Iran’s historic capacity can be separated from the current regime’s support for global terrorism. The linkage between Iran’s atomic efforts and its violent proxies is a reality underscored by the events still unfolding across the region.
In the final analysis, the timing of Etemad’s death serves as a symbolic reminder of both the peril and persistence of the Iranian nuclear challenge. As the Oman negotiations unfold, the fundamental question remains unchanged: will the international community respond with the resolve required to ensure that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons—and its terror machine—are brought definitively to an end?
The answer, for Israel, defines the stakes for the security not just of the Jewish state, but of the broader Middle East and international system.
