A growing faction of Iranian politicians and security analysts is urging Tehran to reconsider its prohibition on nuclear weapons following U.S. and Israeli strikes, raising concerns that Iran could abandon international nonproliferation commitments.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Iranian hardliners are increasingly advocating the development of nuclear weapons and withdrawal from an international nonproliferation agreement, marking a significant shift in Tehran’s internal debate following months of military confrontation with the United States and Israel.
The calls have intensified since the Feb. 28 killing of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose longstanding religious prohibition against nuclear weapons had helped define the Islamic Republic’s official nuclear policy.
According to a Financial Times investigation published Monday, Oct. 19, hardline politicians, analysts and activists are openly arguing that possessing atomic weapons may be necessary to prevent future attacks against Iran.
Khamenei’s successor, his son Mojtaba Khamenei, has not publicly reaffirmed the religious ruling prohibiting nuclear weapons, creating uncertainty about whether the restriction will remain in force.
The change has encouraged advocates of nuclear armament to argue that Iran must reconsider its strategic priorities after suffering extensive damage to military installations and nuclear facilities.
“The latest military confrontations showed that achieving nuclear weapons for Iran is not an ambition, but a necessity more important than bread,” Davoud Modarresian, a political activist associated with Iranian hardliners, wrote this month.
Supporters of developing an atomic arsenal argue that Iran’s conventional military capabilities proved insufficient to deter American and Israeli attacks, making nuclear weapons a potential means of preventing further military intervention.
Some have pointed to North Korea, whose nuclear weapons program has become a central component of its national defense strategy, as an example.
Hassan Ghashghavi, a spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee, suggested last month that Mojtaba Khamenei could issue a new religious ruling permitting the development of nuclear weapons.
He argued that the new supreme leader possesses the authority to reconsider his father’s position and that no other institution could prevent such a decision.
Abolfazl Bazargan, an international relations analyst associated with Iranian hardliners, similarly warned against permanently rejecting nuclear weapons.
Speaking to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated Tasnim news agency, Bazargan described a categorical prohibition as “self-defeat.”
He proposed a nuclear doctrine under which Iran would promise not to initiate a nuclear attack while retaining weapons for retaliation against an adversary.
One Iranian government insider told the Financial Times that support for developing nuclear weapons among officials had risen from virtually zero before the recent conflict to more than 50%.
That estimate reflects one source’s assessment rather than a verified survey of government officials, and Tehran has announced no decision to pursue nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, the increasingly public debate represents a notable departure from previous Iranian policy discussions, in which advocating the development of an atomic bomb could be viewed as challenging the supreme leader’s religious authority.
The debate is unfolding as President Donald Trump continues demanding restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities.
American and Israeli airstrikes in June 2025 severely damaged nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan. Additional military operations this year have heightened concerns about the remaining infrastructure and nuclear material.
Of particular interest to international inspectors is Iran’s stockpile of approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity.
Weapons-grade uranium is generally enriched to about 90%. Nuclear experts estimate that the stockpile, if further enriched, could theoretically provide enough fissile material for several nuclear weapons, although manufacturing operational warheads would require additional technical capabilities.
The precise location and condition of the material remain uncertain following attacks on Iranian facilities.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has struggled to verify the remaining stockpile because inspectors have been unable to access several damaged sites.
Iranian officials have maintained that much of the material remains buried beneath facilities struck during the conflict.
Washington has demanded that Tehran surrender its highly enriched uranium and accept substantial limits on future enrichment.
Trump has also warned that additional military action remains possible if Iran attempts to rebuild nuclear weapons-related capabilities.
Tehran has resisted demands to relinquish its uranium stockpile, although diplomatic discussions have included proposals involving sanctions relief and the future disposition of enriched material.
The dispute is intertwined with negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz, where restrictions on maritime traffic have disrupted international energy markets.
Iranian officials have proposed reopening the waterway under conditions that include easing economic sanctions and ending military hostilities, while Washington has insisted that nuclear restrictions remain central to any broader agreement.
Despite the increasingly assertive rhetoric from hardliners, Iran continues to maintain that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said Sunday that Tehran intends to continue developing civilian nuclear energy, including plans to produce 20,000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear power.
Earlier this month, Eslami also defended Iran’s right to enrich uranium, rejecting demands that the country abandon the process.
He maintained that Iran’s nuclear activities remain within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although international inspectors have reported serious limitations on their ability to verify compliance.
Not all Iranian political figures support expanding the nuclear program.
Hossein Marashi, a prominent reformist politician, has argued that preserving Iran’s national security and political institutions should take priority over retaining uranium enrichment capabilities.
Other officials have warned that openly pursuing nuclear weapons could invite further military attacks, deepen economic isolation and jeopardize diplomatic efforts.
Ali Vaez, an Iran specialist at the International Crisis Group, told the Financial Times that the debate has changed significantly since the death of Ali Khamenei.
“It’s a serious debate and is no longer a taboo due to the former supreme leader’s fatwa,” Vaez said.
“The war has strengthened those who argue that a country exposed to existential attack ultimately needs the ultimate deterrent.”
However, Vaez cautioned that Iranian leaders might ultimately preserve their remaining nuclear infrastructure as leverage in negotiations rather than initiate a weapons program.
Another possibility under discussion is withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, commonly known as the NPT.
The treaty permits member states to withdraw after providing three months’ notice and explaining the extraordinary circumstances they believe threaten their national interests.
Such a move would further complicate international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities and intensify concerns among Western governments and regional rivals.
Two senior Iranian officials told the Financial Times that leaving the treaty is not currently a priority, although they declined to rule out the possibility.
“Our policy regarding the NPT has not changed yet, but this doesn’t mean it won’t in the future,” one official said.
Iran’s leadership therefore faces competing pressures from hardliners seeking a nuclear deterrent and other officials concerned about the risks of further military escalation.
For now, Tehran has not formally abandoned its prohibition against nuclear weapons or announced a decision to withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty.
The growing debate nevertheless underscores how the conflict with Washington and Israel has altered Iran’s strategic calculations, potentially complicating future negotiations aimed at preventing the development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal.
Original article
Comments