Daniel Greenfield | May 12, 2025
Iran has some of the cheapest electricity prices in the world. The average cost of electricity in the United States per kilowatt hour is $0.181.
In Iran it’s $0.004.
A country where electricity is vastly cheaper than America isn’t looking to lower power costs.
Iran joins Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman, Qatar and other oil-rich countries as having some of the cheapest electricity prices in the world. Countries with vast energy reserves and production don’t need nuclear energy the way that Germany or France, which depend on imports, do.
Saudi Arabia, with $0.053 electricity, did not begin pursuing a nuclear program because it needed to lower its energy costs. Neither did the UAE. The Saudis and Emiratis became interested in developing a “civilian” nuclear program only as Iran’s nuclear program took off.
If Iran were developing a nuclear program to lower energy costs, it would have long ago dropped the program after sanctions cost its economy an estimated $1 trillion. Losing $1 trillion to shave a few more fractions of a cent off the average cost of a kilowatt makes no sense.
Iran is not interested in peaceful applications of nuclear energy, but in nuclear weapons. That’s why it’s been willing to lose $1 trillion and go to war to protect its nuclear program.
Despite these obvious common sense facts, the Obama administration and some figures in the current administration insist on pretending that a deal can be made to keep Iran’s nuclear program peaceful. The idea is just as false in 2025 as it was in 2015 when Obama pushed his Iran deal premised on the idea that an Islamic terror state with oil coming out of the ground has lost $1 trillion and gone to the brink of war to lower electricity costs from $0.004 to $0.003.
Consider Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant. Under construction since the 90s, its 1,000 megawatts is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions spent on constructing it. (Iran has variously claimed to have spent either $1.7 billion or $4 billion on the plant.)
One of the world’s largest energy producers would not be going to war to add 1,000 megawatts.
Despite Bushehr and the rest of Iran’s extensive and growing nuclear infrastructure, Iran gets only 1% of its electricity from nuclear power. Iran gets most of its actual electricity (86%) from natural gas. And Iran’s natural gas cost is $0.001 per kWh for residential customers (vs $0.081 on average in the world).
With 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, one of the biggest reserves in the world, Iran has all the energy it needs under its feet. Even without adding the $1 trillion cost of sanctions, the numbers for using nuclear power plants to generate electricity for homes and businesses make no economic sense.
Over 95% of Iranian households depend on gas. And Iran has so much power that it exports electricity to nearby Iraq. Despite putting on a facade of power and gas shortages to justify its nuclear power program, that’s not because Iran doesn’t have enough gas, but because it prioritizes exports over its domestic market, and uses the revenues for international terrorism.
Iran is the world’s third largest natural gas producer after America and Russia. Where does that money go? It certainly doesn’t go to the Iranian population which gets little to no say in it.
Iran’s trillions of cubic feet of natural gas produced each year also help finance its extremely expensive and devastating nuclear program. Is Iran planning to spend another $20 billion building nuclear plants (in an economy with a GDP of only $404 billion) because it wants to make sure that its civilian population and businesses have everything that they need?
If Iran really cared about the welfare and prosperity of its civilian population, it would have stopped its nuclear program and ended the international sanctions imposed on it which have hit its consumer goods, and business exports and imports hardest, while doing less to stop its core energy exports and construction businesses that the regime derives much of its wealth from.
When Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, ballistic missiles and terrorism, its GDP growth fell from as high as 8.8% after the Obama deal to 2.4%.
Was adding some megawatts to the grid in a country powered by its gas reserves worth that?
Iran is not pursuing a nuclear program because (1) it needs the electric power (2) because it makes any economic sense or (3) because it cares about its civilian population.
No one in the Middle East is building nuclear power plants because they want a civilian nuclear industry. And certainly not countries that can get all the energy they want just by drilling.
Those who oppose any crackdown on Iran’s nuclear program should be honest and say so rather than promoting the Obama fiction that one of the world’s largest energy producers with dirt-cheap electricity lost $1 trillion to be able to slightly boost its electric generation capacity.
Iran is not building its deep underground Natanz uranium enrichment complex so far in the earth that it’s supposed to be unreachable by U.S. strikes because it wants a civilian nuclear program. And that much is obvious to everyone. But there are those who still insist on an imaginary separation between Bushehr and Natanz, between Iran’s supposedly civilian and military nuclear program, and using that as the basis for a deal limiting Iran’s capacity to civilian uses.
But all of that is premised on the idea that Iran wants a civilian program and would therefore accept and honor an arrangement that would limit it to a civilian program with no possibility of weapons development. That premise which Obama accepted and sold to Congressional Democrats quickly fell apart only for Witkoff and other administration players to try and revive it.
Iran isn’t looking to trade a weapons program for a civilian program. It’s doing what it has done from the very beginning which is disguising its military program as a civilian program. Obama, like a number of figures in political office and the intelligence community, knew that and chose to pretend otherwise. They are the reason why Iran has become a bigger threat over the years.
Defenders of rebooting Obama’s Iran Deal have taken to calling critics “globalists” and claim that bringing back Obama’s old policy is somehow “America First”. They insist that being realistic about Iran’s nuclear program is a plot by the military-industrial complex and the CIA.
But it was the CIA and the ‘intelligence community’ that bailed out Iran during the Bush administration by falsely declaring that “we judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.
The Trump administration can do what it chooses about Iran’s nuclear program. It can maintain sanctions, it can take out the program or it can do absolutely nothing. But it should be clear-eyed about what Iran’s nuclear program is and what it’s for. Deals with terrorists and terror states are worthless. Any agreement with Iran can only end one way and that’s with a terror state whose motto is “Death to America” gaining the ability to carry out that threat against us.
Iran’s civilian nuclear program is as much of a front as a mob chain of pizza parlors. Negotiating with Islamic terrorists is a waste of America’s power and credibility. And it seduces those who negotiate with terrorists into believing that a deal is possible no matter how high the red flags fly.
The United States can choose to ignore Iran, but it should stop humiliating itself by negotiating with a terror state that has tortured and murdered Americans, and now treats us like suckers.
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine.
@Rafi
I totally agree.
Hopefully, the strikes will cause enough chaos with which to foment a revolt by the opposition and will come to bring some sense of unity among them to seize the moment and retake control of their own fate, but it is something which has long been concerning to consider the deep and fundamental divisions which exist among the Iranian opposition.
Trump so far is playing into the Iranians typical method. They use negotiations to stall and keep on their goal of nuclear power for military purposes.
They have again said that they have a right to enrich uranium and it is not realistic to think that they will not. Israel and hopefully the USA (they have more capabilities with their B2 bombers) will destroy the Iranian nuclear program completely. This needs to be now and not later!
Also needed to be destroyed on are missile bases, IRGC facilities and government facilities. Enough should be destroyed so that the dissidents in Iran can take power and remove the Mullah’s and IRGC.
It is both interesting and telling what has been taking place in this thread.
My interest in the thread is the following:
Iran Mullahs have no reason for electric power from nuclear for these reasons
* For the reasons Daniel Greenfield has ably advanced concerning their massive supplies of oil and gas. He goes into great detail showing how illogical it is on the part of the Mullahs
But there’s another argument Greenfield doesn’t address.
Those supporters of Iran say they have a national right like any other country, plus they say the oil and gas will run out. This is being advanced on a pretty extensive platform as we speak.
But more and more wind and solar is now safer and cheaper than nuclear
In other words all arguments for nuclear, anywhere, are refuted and certainly they are refuted re the Mullahs program.
In every which way they have no reason to go near nuclear. Because they have oil and gas AND when it runs out the alternative means of energy have dropped massively in price in relation to nuclear.
And so I added a very powerful additional to Greenfields argument
Which adds strength to the total argument against Iran using it’s lies to develop rapidly a nuclear bomb to create a new Holocaust of the Jews.
Red herring after red herring have been employed and supported by editor to push me off this message. The bigger question is why !!! ?
@fquigley
https://youtu.be/EzVxsYzXI_Y?si=HAn_7VcrSxis1bfj
It takes little intelligence to know that NO nation needs Uranium enrichment pasa low level for civilian nuclear Power electricity mfr.. Certainly not 60%..Even schoolkids know THAT….!!
Also that Iran needs NO nuclear power stations ….unless their oil is running out. One cannot believe that they are concerned about the “science” of Climate Change….since central to their beliefs is the coming of the 12th Imam, with all it entails.
What does Felix Quigley suggest that we do about it…travel around the world on foot, ….heat ourselves by jumping up an down continuously,. .which is allowed by Dati authority on Shabbas….. stop all activity using electricity….go back to foot driven treadles….Wear wooden clogs….
In fact I can suggest the best solution of all which is”
JUST STOP BREATHING ALTOGETHER………!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to serious thinking….Is there actually a SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE….or is Climate Change being shown by other forms of science- like NASA. I fail to see that I have made an attack on the science of Climate Change…..the reason being that I HAVE NOT.
Even a cursory/casual reading of my post can’t fail to see that I said “It may be that Climate Change is going on”….AND.. “Assume that is is changing”….
I see NO disputing about “the Little Ice Age”, AND no giving a reason-even if not valid- for Ice caps melting on the one hand and then increasing on the other……. Besides, the “Little Ice Age” is a scientifically proven fact –
And no disputing of Cyclic Climate Change either……..!!!!!!
I’m seriously interested in any “dealing” with my “claim” about The Little Ice Age, -a proven Scientific fact…
“*At the battle of Austerlitz (Dec.2nd 1805) there is an account of 5,000 Russian troops with baggage etc retreating across a frozen lake, in good order, until Napoleon ordered cannon (mortar) fire into the lake itself eventually cracking the ice and drowning all the Russians….
This was during the LITTLE ICE AGE, which began around the 14th cent, and finished in mid 19th cent*********** ”
I do not want to answer the attacks by Edgar on the science of Climate Change if the points I have made about Iran enrichment of uranium are unanswered by Edgar, backed by editor Peloni
Indeed I have yet to see one comment that fairly deals with what I said
I can very easily and comprehensively deal with Edgar’s claim on the Little Ice Age. But not here not now.
I do not decide to comment on this because it is an attack on the science of climate change.
It has nothing to do with my comment.
My comment made it clear that Iran does not need enrichment of uranium to fulfil the electricity needs of the Iranian people
That is the centre of my argument on this thread.
Sebastien Zorn
You write
What also was the point of my remarks below?
(Asked above by me)
And your reply Sebastien is here
Good question. I agree 100%. Do I hear 110%? Going, going, going, Gone! Sold! For 100 percent. Congratulations. Next item, please. ?
Please explain
Rafi
“Iran can NOT be allowed to have a nuclear program. Talk about a polluted atmosphere an Iranian nuclear bomb going off. So this climate talk is at best foolish or nonsensical. ”
Your first sentence is correct.
It cannot be allowed to have a nuclear bomb because it will use it against Jews in a new Holocaust
Rest of comment is unclear to me. Can you rewrite it
I do not see why you attack climate change science.
Greenfield is right, as always. It is foolish to negotiate with people who consistently lie, never keep their side of any agreement, gleefully continue to raise their children to hate Jews and will use their own women and children as shields.
Allow me to add to my previous post re “being “cyclic” that just now I’ re-reading the Memoirs of Baron Marbot, and he describes several military actions taking place in central Europe in the dead of winter, over areas dotted with marsh and large pools and lakes.
These being covered with snow are being fought on, and since they are iced to several feet, are just like solid ground. This in December 1806-7
“”””””he also describes Poland as being the most miserable and deprived country in Europe. hopelessly poor, the buildings mainly consisting of “hovels” inhabited in many cases by Jews, filthy, and disease ridden, verminous beyond description….and more……..Labaume also has a similar description…”””””””
{Labaume travelled in Prince Eugene’s coach and acted as his secretary during the 1812 debacle}
Thank G-d for Israel…
I’ve also seen in this book, (and in others….such as Labaume’s History ) the names of many towns and villages with names such as “Spielberg”….”Zhitomer”… Konigsberg” =*Woody Allen) .and many more all also being the names of Jews I’ve either read about or known.
So we know now where many of us got our family names…..
**********At the battle of Austerlitz (Dec.2nd 1805) there is an account of 5,000 Russian troops with baggage etc retreating across a frozen lake, in good order, until Napoleon ordered cannon (mortar) fire into the lake itself eventually cracking the ice and drowning all the Russians….
This was during the LITTLE ICE AGE, which began around the 14th cent, and finished in mid 19th cent***********
@Rafi Well said.
@fquigley
Good question. I agree 100%. Do I hear 110%? Going, going, going, Gone! Sold! For 100 percent. Congratulations. Next item, please.
Iranian Regime should not only not be allowed to produce nukes! Plus they need to be eliminated because they are terrorists. The USA and others should help the opposition overthrow them and install a new democratic government that people actually want in the majority.
Trump offered Iran to obtain nuclear fuel from outside the country (if their goal is generating electricity from nuclear energy) but said no to them enriching Uranium at any level. They have not agreed because they want to make nuclear bombs whenever they want. They do not care about electricity (that is a red herring).
Iran can NOT be allowed to have a nuclear program. Talk about a polluted atmosphere an Iranian nuclear bomb going off. So this climate talk is at best foolish or nonsensical.
Iranian regime are Islamist terrorists who want to destroy Israel and the USA plus minimally control the middle east with the threat of nuclear destruction to their Muslim rivals in the Gulf States.
Iran does not need nuclear energy except for nefarious purposes. If someone does not understand this, that is sad.
Peloni
“Edgar
” I agree 100%. ”
What exactly do you agree with in the comment of Edgar who is ignoring totally my.point and so you are as well.
I am truly mystified
Edgar
You seem to have missed the point I made.
I stated it here
“A very common defence of the Iran enrichment is that they need it for their country to produce electricity”
This is a defence that I see being made over and over
Believe that if the issue was global warming as a result of greenhouse gases that has been proved by science decisively
But that here was not what I was engaged in. As my words make clear.
It is very unfortunate to see what has happened to my first comment
Sebastien Zorn
I take what you say seriously and in fact everyone also
“Yes. The thing I could care less about and in fact am opposed to is Iran being able to meet their energy needs from any source. This is like “humanitarian aid” to Hamas.”
But I cannot understand what you are saying here.
Remember the mullahs are not just Iran or the Iranian people
What also was the point of my remarks below?
@Edgar
I agree 100%.
In the red hot rhetoric about Climate Change, It seems to me that the real nucleus of the argument is overlooked.
There may be Climate Change going on, the opinions and results from experts differ in various parts of the world. One day the polar caps are shrinking, the next they are enlarging etc etc.
Assume that it is changing, we overlook that we as human beings can not stop it. The most strenuous endeavours of humanity can make but a minute difference. Sun Spots alone have more effect than a million times mans’ best attempts.
Any changes are NATURAL, AND CYCLIC. They recur and have done throughout world history and long before man arrived.
So why not give it a rest and discuss more immediate and important events……..?????
@fquigley Yes. The thing I could care less about and in fact am opposed to is Iran being able to meet their energy needs from any source. This is like “humanitarian aid” to Hamas.
Sebastien Zorn
A very strange reply to my point which I will not repeat.
A very common defence of the Iran enrichment is that they need it for their country to produce electricity
But it is always false
Iran has no need to touch uranium. Despite Trumps latest position they have no need.to go near an ounce of uranium.
This is a very powerful argument indeed. They can produce electricity in many ways as Daniel Greenfield says using oil and they can also use the alternatives. And cheaper. I am simply ADDING to the stated arguments and it is an argument particularly relevant today.
It directly addresses the warlike essence of the Mullahs hatred of Israel.
It means that now no matter what arguments are put up to support the Iranian bomb creation they can be comprehensively answered.
This is very important.
The fact that Iran is actually now building solar should be very widely known
You should care about these issues.
@fquigley
Kumbaya.
Now, the big question is why don’t I give a f*?
Greenfield is a Climate Change denier and I strongly believe the opposite
I agree that Iran is very dangerous to the Jewish state
Here is an issue that must be understood:
All of climate science opposed to the burning of oil and gas
But the climate science do not put forward nuclear as an alternative
Nuclear just cannot compete on simple economics and safety, by a mile, with ready at hand alternatives (wind solar and likely hydrogen)
That argument is now gone and that argument is finished
This is an argument that is particularly important because it refutes those on the alt left and alt right who attack Israel day in and day out.
If this argument is not made orbecause of other convictions cannot be made the utterly backward ideology of the mullahs is offered a significant opening
But the science of climate change is also in operation and denies the Mullahs that reason for going nuclear as well as the others which Greenfield lists