“Nuclear energy is our inalienable right.” This slogan was repeated in Iranian rallies. Today, another slogan is chanted in night gatherings: “Exiting the treaty is our absolute right.”
This is how hard-line MP Malek Shariati described the transformation on Sunday in front of Parliament. He said: “The same people who used to chant the slogan ‘Nuclear energy is our Muslim right’ are today chanting the slogan ‘Exiting the treaty is our Muslim right.’” But the transformation is no longer limited to the streets.
Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, said on Saturday evening that Tehran had not taken a “new decision” to change its nuclear doctrine. However, he said that it is “on the table” if a new war is imposed on Iran.
The Council, whose secretariat is held by Rezaei, supervises the making of strategic decisions, especially the nuclear file, and they are approved by the Iranian Leader.
Talk about reviewing the nuclear doctrine and exiting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is no longer taking place in the margins or in circles that call for preparing the conditions for end-time wars. It was presented again from the Tehran Friday pulpit, from within Parliament, and from semi-official media, including newspapers affiliated with the Supreme Leader’s office.
Some of these voices go beyond review to outright claim to own the bomb. There are other voices warning of its military and diplomatic costs.
Observers say that reviewing the nuclear doctrine generally means, in the political literature related to nuclear proliferation, changing the course of the nuclear program with the aim of possessing weapons of mass destruction.
Currently, the decision remains in the hands of the new guide, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not appeared in public since taking office and has not yet taken an explicit position on the nuclear issue.
Why do you want to continue this situation?
General Rezaei said, in an interview with state television: “A new decision has not yet been taken in the government, in the government. But this debate is now on the table: If war breaks out again, do we want to keep the previous doctrine or not?
Rezaei presented the debate as a response to public pressure. He said that “there is a popular demand” to change the nuclear doctrine. He continued: “They see that the enemy came and struck all our nuclear centers. Why did he hit her? We responded to all of the agency's inspections, and had cameras at all of our locations. When people see this, they naturally ask us: Why do you want to continue this situation?
Rezaei answered a question about the possibility of negotiating the nuclear file. He said that it was “not known” whether Iran would remain in the treaty if another war was imposed on it. He added: “We are members of the treaty and we have 22 rights, and if there is a nuclear dialogue, we will demand our rights.”
Rezaei attacked the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi. He described him as “a mercenary and a servant of the Zionist regime,” and said that “all our problems began during his reign.”
This is the second time Rezaei has asked the question since he took office in August. Days after his appointment, Rezaei asked in an interview with state television about the feasibility of adhering to international norms, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty, saying: “If that is the case, why do we not pursue the nuclear bomb?”
He said at the time that “Trump’s foolishness pushed the world towards possessing the nuclear bomb.” He pointed out that Iran was attacked despite its membership in the treaty and its acceptance of inspection, adding: “So neither the Non-Proliferation Treaty is effective, nor is membership in the Agency.”
Member of the Presidium of the Leadership Council of Experts and member of the Expediency Discernment Council, Mohsen Araki, joined in raising “the demand on officials to reconsider the continued membership of the Islamic Republic” in the treaty. He said that this demand should be “one of the important demands” in rallies and throughout the country.
He added that Iran “suffered many damages and blows” due to its membership in the treaty, “without obtaining any proportionate benefit.” He called on officials to review staying there “in light of the experiences.”
The temporary Friday preacher of Tehran, Muhammad Jawad Haj Ali Akbari, raised the issue in two successive sermons. He said in a sermon last Friday at the University of Tehran: “Why don’t we reconsider our nuclear doctrine? This demand is not a hasty and emotional reaction, but rather the result of maturity and national awareness.”
He added: “The enemies trampled all the red lines of the Iranian people, killed our Imam, and did not abide by their pledges and contracts.” He said that “some people were angry” when the issue was raised. He also said that “more than 70 percent” of Iranians supported reviewing the nuclear doctrine in previous polls, without mentioning the source of these polls.
He called on the elites and experts to prepare their proposals, and the concerned parties to complete their studies, to submit them to the new guide. He said: “In the end, we will follow whatever decision the leader of the revolution sees, but at the same time we must pay attention to this demand that has been formed in society.”
Friday prayer preachers, directions from the Supreme Leader’s Office. Observers say that raising the issue from the Tehran Friday podium turns it into a more public discussion.
This discussion collides with the legacy of the former guide, Ali Khamenei. He said in a speech about two decades ago that the production, storage, and use of nuclear weapons is “haram.” Tehran presented this position to the United Nations as a “fatwa.”
Before the war, Iranian officials, including the head of the Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Islami, spoke of their country’s ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. But they said she had no intention of making it, based on the former guide's position.
On the “X” platform, the new assistant guide, Muhammad Mokhber, wrote on Sunday that Iran’s defense doctrine is “rapidly transforming,” and that “the geography of the threat no longer determines the geography of the response.” He added: “The redefinition of the scope of deterrence has gone beyond the regional framework, and the source of the threat, its scope and location no longer restricts Iran’s deterrence calculations.” No informant made explicit reference to the nuclear doctrine.
Parliamentary pressure
On Sunday, the discussion moved to the public session of Parliament, which was held virtually. Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ali Nikzad, said, “The Iranian people do not have any decision to negotiate the nuclear file.” He described American hostility to Iran as a “civilizational confrontation.”
The head of the Article 90 Committee of the Constitution, Representative Nasrallah Bajmanfar, called for putting exit from the treaty “seriously on the agenda.” He said that remaining in the treaty “had no effect on us, but only provided ways for the enemy movement to influence inside the country.”
He added: “Whenever Grossi and the treaty team enter our country, we suffer many losses and damages.” He continued: “I hope that this decision will reach a result, and everyone will decide according to the leadership. By leaving the treaty, we will make them understand that our country will never back down in the face of these pressures.”
Hardline MP Mahmoud Nabawyan wrote that “changing the nuclear doctrine” has become an “almost unanimous demand” of the Iranians, in light of the enemy’s threats.
In the same session, Representative Malek Shariati described exiting the treaty as a “popular demand.” He said, "People in different regions of the country are demanding that their representatives withdraw Iran from this treaty."
Representative Ibrahim Rezaei said in a post on the “X” platform that the Supreme Leader’s order to “deepen local defense in the areas of doctrine and tactics” constitutes a “clear sign” of his program to achieve “permanent deterrence.”
In an interview with the ILNA agency, member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ismail Kothari, a former leader in the Revolutionary Guards and one of the supporters of this trend, presented a formula linking any shift to the guide’s decision.
He said that the Iranians “raised the issue of reviving nuclear weapons.” He added that the decision “is not taken solely based on the desires and opinions of individuals,” but rather in accordance with “the overall policies of the regime.” He said: “The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has the first and last word.”
Kothari said that the Supreme Leader’s recent message stressed strengthening “the structure of military intelligence and developing doctrine.” He described changing the nuclear doctrine and exiting the treaty as a “different issue” in which the decision rests with the Supreme Leader.
He called for “studying all the flaws, advantages and angles of this issue,” adding: “If a decision is made at some stage, we must stand behind it with all our strength.” He said that Tehran is “not optimistic” about the Americans. He added that “there will be no negotiations” before implementing the seven items.
Ambiguity or warning?
Iranian newspapers were divided. The Akah newspaper, affiliated with the Al-Murshid Foundation, wrote that “the demand for the atomic bomb has become a serious demand among the general public.”
The newspaper presented an account of the last two wars. She said that Iran deliberately did not launch some strikes, “so that the enemy would not go to the last option and drop an atomic bomb on us.” She added that possessing the bomb would put Iran “at the highest level of the tension ladder,” and bring it to “absolute deterrence.”
On Saturday, Kayhan newspaper, affiliated with the Supreme Leader’s office, called for an end to nuclear “transparency” and exit from the treaty. “It is no longer necessary for Iranian officials to categorically and explicitly deny making nuclear weapons,” she wrote. Double statements, ambiguous positions, and even silence are the best response.” She concluded with a statement directed at Washington: “If the Americans fear the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, it is okay for them to be a little afraid.”
In its editorial, the newspaper called for closing the door to nuclear negotiations once and for all. She wrote that Iran, after the “criminal American aggression,” would not conduct any negotiations on its nuclear program, not only “at the present time,” but “absolutely and forever.”
In the opposite camp, the Khabar Online website, which is close to the Iranian president’s team, quoted fundamentalist activist Hossein Naqvi Hosseini as saying that “none of the bodies concerned with decision-making” had expressed an opinion on changing the nuclear strategy. He added that raising the issue in rallies and parliament “will only lead to costs being imposed on us.”
Naqvi Hosseini said that the matter would be different if the Supreme Leader expressed an opinion on the fatwa of the previous Leader or issued a new fatwa, or the Supreme National Security Council issued a decision. He added that all institutions will then be obligated to work in accordance with it. He said that the display of military force must remain “within the framework of the country’s overall policies.”
International affairs expert Hadi Alami Freeman said: “We are in the stage of confrontation and zero hour.” He ruled out that changing the nuclear doctrine or moving towards making weapons would provide “effective deterrence” in the current circumstances.
Haft Sobh newspaper reported two conflicting opinions from two former ambassadors. Muhammad Hassan Qadiri Abyaneh said that possessing the bomb was “necessary,” and called on the guide to “issue permission to manufacture this weapon.” He stipulated that it would not be used unless the enemy used nuclear weapons first. He said that the United States and Israel “indicated the possibility of using the atomic bomb against Iran.” He called for not diluting uranium enriched to 60 percent or removing it from the country.
As for the diplomat, Abu al-Qasim Delfi, the former Iranian ambassador to France, he saw the invitations as a trap. He said that Washington is "trying hard" to push Tehran to declare its desire for nuclear weapons, to justify its attacks. He added: “We must not fall into this trap.”
Delphi said that a “radical minority” stands behind these calls, stressing that Russia and China “do not support” Iran in the issue of manufacturing weapons. He believed that the continuation of the “neither war nor peace” situation ultimately comes down to the nuclear issue, explaining that resolving it is a condition for resolving the rest of the issues.
What the IAEA knows and what it does not know
These discussions revolve around a program that international inspectors do not have a complete picture of. The International Atomic Energy Agency has not been able to verify the status of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium since the US strikes last year.
Grossi told the Security Council last week that the agency “has not observed since June 2025 any activity to repair or rebuild any of the facilities that were damaged in the military attacks in 2025 and 2026.” He called on Iran to allow inspectors access to all sites, including the damaged ones.
The agency says that Iran possesses 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent. This percentage is a short technical step away from the 90 percent required to make a weapon.
Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful. But this stock is present in the arguments of those calling for the bomb. Qaderi Abyaneh said that Western countries know that raising enrichment from 60 to 90 percent is “an easy task,” and that Iran possesses missiles “capable of carrying a nuclear bomb.” He added that “the time interval between making the decision and using it will be very short” if Iran decides to do so.
Delphi sees the way out in the opposite direction. He said: “If we can find a solution to this issue that convinces the world that Iran is not seeking to make a nuclear weapon, we can hope to solve the rest of the issues.” Otherwise, other problems will remain.”
