On Cusp of Renewed War, More Iranians are Calling for Nuclear Weapons
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
From pulpits at Friday Prayer to street rallies, Iranian clerics and officials are increasingly urging the country’s leaders to reverse their longtime pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons.
This demand, once seen as a fringe position held by hard-liners, is moving into mainstream public debate, and the shift could have dramatic consequences for Iran, whose government has for decades argued that its nuclear program was solely for peaceful purposes.
“We must be equipped with nuclear weapons — so that we can fight the criminal America with strength, God willing,” Ali Sepahvand, the Friday Prayer leader in Iran’s western city of Kuhdasht, said last week, according to a widely distributed video.
As his voice echoed through a prayer hall, covered in photographs of commanders killed in the war with the United States and Israel this past year, the congregants chanted: “Nuclear deterrence is our inalienable right!”
The growing calls for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons come as the country’s leaders engage in diplomatic efforts to stave off renewed war with the United States and Israel, an outcome widely considered likely after the American midterm elections on Tuesday.
For decades, Iran’s officials have publicly endorsed the fatwa, or religious edict, from its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which forbade the development and use of nuclear weapons. Issued in his capacity as the head of Iran’s theocratic state, his decree barred Iranian institutions, including the military and the Revolutionary Guard, from pursuing a nuclear bomb.
Yet at the same time, Western intelligence agencies in past years reported signs Iran was enriching uranium to levels close to those that could be used to develop a bomb. Some officials in Israel and the United States accused Iran of preparing to build one, regardless of the fatwa.
To curb this threat, the United States and other world powers reached an agreement with Iran in 2015 to restrict its nuclear activities. Three years later, President Donald Trump pulled out of that agreement.
Khamenei’s strategy, regional analysts say, had been to keep Iran’s nuclear intentions ambiguous in hopes of deterring attacks on Iran without it actually becoming a nuclear power.
But that approach failed to prevent the two wars Israel and the United States have waged against Iran since June 2025 — including the one in which Khamenei was killed in February.
“He created this neither in nor out situation, where they paid for a bomb they didn’t have,” said Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iran analyst who edits the independent regional news site Amwaj.media. “Now, there is this sense that unless you have this ultimate weapon, you could end up at the mercy of not just the U.S., but Israel, at any point.”
Trump’s own comments may strengthen this assessment, analysts say.
“If they had a nuclear weapon, I’d be calling the supreme leader and I’d be saying, ‘Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you, sir? Is there anything we can do for you?’ As opposed to bombing the crap out of him,” Trump said at the Republican midterm convention in September.
Inside Iran, calls for withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT, which prohibits development of a nuclear weapon, have been growing ever since Israel and the United States attacked in 2025.
In recent weeks, an increasing number of Iranian political and religious figures have added their voices to this chorus, suggesting to some Iran analysts that there is an effort orchestrated, or at least enabled, by the country’s leadership.
It is unclear whether serious debate over Iran’s nuclear doctrine has reached the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. But on Saturday, Iran’s top national security figure, Mohsen Rezaei, said in an interview on state television that Iran’s leaders were discussing it.
“No new decision has been made yet,” he said. “Of course, the debate now is whether we want to keep the same doctrine we had before the war, if war breaks out again.”
Advocating for withdrawal from the NPT was once a minority position within Iran’s leadership, said Mohammad Ghaderi, a foreign affairs expert in Tehran, Iran.
Now, he argued, it is becoming a majority view. “They argue that if the military threats from the United States and Israel persist, withdrawing from the NPT represents a crucial step toward establishing deterrence,” he said.
Raising the nuclear prospect at a time when Iran could be at the cusp of another possible attack by the United States or Israel may itself be a strategy, said Omid Memarian, an Iran analyst at DAWN, a Washington-based Middle East research group.
Rezaei’s entry into the debate, while Qatar has been leading intensive mediation efforts between Washington and Tehran, may be an attempt to push the United States to reach a deal, Memarian said.
“They are playing with this card: If the negotiation fails, we will seek a different path, and it will be costly for you,” he said.
Especially notable has been the number of Friday Prayer leaders adding their voices to the calls and effectively challenging the late ayatollah’s fatwa.
“The taboo is gone,” Shabani said. “A religious foundation for the shift is here. The question is whether a strategic or political shift will follow.”
Some of Iran’s leading reformist figures, like President Masoud Pezeshkian and former President Hassan Rouhani, continue to back Iran’s peaceful nuclear doctrine.
In Iran’s leading reformist newspaper, Shargh, a former diplomat, Kourosh Ahmadi, warned this week that abandoning that doctrine poses grave risks. The plethora of pro-weapon statements from prominent figures, he said, “is dangerous because it makes the work of officials trying to prevent another war more difficult.”
And until Iran could manage to build a bomb, he argued, the chances of being attacked would actually increase.
After U.S. and Israeli strikes wiped out most of Iran’s top leadership and battered its infrastructure, it is harder for critics of the nuclear option to make their case, said Sina Toossi, an Iran expert at the Center for International Policy, a Washington-based think tank.
“The central problem for advocates of restraint is explaining what Iran gained from remaining below the nuclear threshold,” he said.
At the same time, he said, a new round of U.S. attacks “could strengthen the very arguments for the nuclear weapons that Washington says it wants to prevent.”
At public prayers in Tehran on Friday, the prayer leader, Mohammad Javad Haj Ali Akbari, declared that changing Iran’s nuclear doctrine was “a national demand,” according to a video posted on social media.
His congregants immediately responded with a refrain common at government-sponsored rallies from decades past: “Nuclear energy is our inalienable right!”
“This is an old slogan,” he told them, and smiled: “We have gone way beyond that.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Gee, no one saw that coming . /s
ezpz. russia needs cash and has nukes. iran wants nukes and has cash.
Three words: North Korea; Crytocurrency.
They simply CANNOT be trusted. They refused to allow the IAEA inspect all their nuclear development sites previously notwithstanding that they signed an agreement to do so. They are so extreme that wouldn't give a shit how many Muslims would die if they nuked Israel - they would call lthem martyrs. The west has NO CHOICE but to do WHATEVER it takes to prevent them from developing the bomb.
Actually there nay be something that's even more of an actual threat of an Iranian nuke. And thats cyber-warfare.
Using sophisiticated cyber hacking to paralize critical U.S. infra-structure.
(Keep watching the news...)
We had a lot fewer concens before the invention of the computer. Now, with the AI tool, chaos is achievable.
oh good grief
this gets more screwed up every day
Now he is announcing a comprehensive peace plan he concocted with Dimitrov that will solve Ukraine, Europe and Iran
a big, beautifuck plan that will please all
with no input from Ukraine, Europe or Iran.
What could go wrong?
Indeed.
Prior to the mid-terms the Republicans had control of not only the presidency, but also had control of both houses of Congress!
But then the midterms happened and that really screwed things up-- now the Democrats will be in control of both houses of Congress!
(What a YUGE screwup!!!!)
its a new domino theory - venezuela falls, trump is thrilled with himself, and so we attack another country
"Did someone say Domino's? Their pizza is so addictive it's like a drug. Perhaps we should be bombing the delivery drivers, and then we can take over their country and have unlimited drug sauce all for ourselves. Stephen? Are you taking notes?"
"Yes boss. Bomb delivery drivers and get the drug sauce."
As if he treats the Indians, French, British and Pakis that way?
There's something wrong here.
gee, I wonder who else has nukes in the middle east, that they won't admit to, so they can't be inspected, even when they're a founding member of the international atomic energy agency ...
Let's leave our theoriesaalone for a while and look at the actual facts.
So which countries have actually used their nukes in warfare? Have the ones that are inspected used their nukes more-- or have the ones that haven/t been inspected used their nukes more?
(Or is there actually any difference?)
And so Trump says: " Mr. Putin, Russian Leader, how are you, Sir? Is there anything we can do for you? And, Trump says to Ukraine: "Mr. Zelinksyy, Volodymyr, you have no leverage."
We now know just how badly a single incompetent PotUS can fuck things up for the planet.
There is the lesson there. . . stop electing narcissist to lead us. . . elect humble people. . .who appreciate any and every opportunity 'afforded' to serve one's country positively. (It is extremely hard for an arrogant ass of a man or woman to fake humility. . . . So we (all) should look closely for the signs of arrogance (poor) character. And probably, though I hate to write this, we should have a jaded eye when considering presidents that are professional builders.
Part of the problem, CB, is that the political parties limit our choices. Not everyone can secure the enormous funding necessary to compete against party-backed candidates. So getting good people into office is quite a challenge. And the parties are not motivated to get good people, but rather to get people who are a) electable and b) party-loyal.
We need to reduce the influence of money in politics. I would love to see reasonable limits on campaign spending, including caps that prevent candidates from accumulating enormous campaign war chests.
We also have to address the unlimited independent expenditures permitted through Super PACs. Wealthy individuals such as Musk, Soros, et.al. can spend extraordinary amounts attempting to influence elections. We saw this in stark terms in 2024 and in 2026 with Musk.
Uber-rich individuals should not be able to amplify their political influence with their spending power.
We just had an election where the Democrats did exceptionally well. Progressives even exceeded some of the most optimistic expectations. (Some won battles in some of the most historicsally right-wing states).
Of course you are entitled to your opinions!
But I'm curious-- what, exactly are you complaining about?
And we have to (struggle if necessary) to break this mindset. Mostly by doing so at times of intercession: Right now, at the start of a new congress and after election. We can 'train' our politicians: 1. STOP! eating' from the trough of billionaires - 'eat' from the people's 'table.' 2. STOP! Waiting for the election cycle to begin in earnest or wind up and go talk to voters 'everyday' and make them 'feel' involved and familiar - and not 'creatures' of last ditch (desperation). 3. STOP! Making 'idle' promises and then forgetting about them after election because they are too 'hard' to accomplish - promise what a politician can see himself or herself accomplishing.
If democrats do the above, they won't have to worry about "party loyalty" - the thing will take care of itself! Additionally, so will the funding. Besides, do we really need two years to decide if we want a congress person to continue. . . to be vetted for two years job. . . to read, learn, discover 'missteps,' blemishes, "oppo" research - It's all too much 'babbling' and costs! If it not just people enriching themselves as operatives, personalities, and writing books (for publicity). . . all while lacking in sincerity?
I am noting that the established parties limit our choices. They essentially select / support candidates based on electability and party loyalty, with little concern about how well the candidates will represent their constituents.
So how did that work out for them in the current midterms?
Actually the parties select their candidates based on how members of the party vote in their primaries.
What an excellent idea!
(I wonder why no one's ever thought of that before-- it seems so obvious!)
And where do they get the people to run? The structure rewards playing the party game. From the beginning they are taught this. What we see now is the result of a constant effort since at least the late '80's do defile the opponent and glorify the victor. It more noticeably started in the '94 election.
Who was the hublest PotUS during the last century? Would you say Harry Truman of The Buck Stops Here fame?
We have been electing relatively-speaking humble people or at least men that can acknowledge they are servants while in office. . . notable exception: Donald Trump. That man clearly is on one's servant and his arrogance is insufferable (as those that 'walk' away from the MAGA 'movement') come to realize. Sadly, they can only be clear-headed about this when once (or more) Trump lies PERSONALLY to him or her.
Poorly, but it took an extraordinary response. It is quite possible that Trump would not have won if Musk had not poured money into the swing states.
Ultimately, it is just not right.
I have been referring to the primaries. Voters have little say in who they can vote for in the primaries. To be viable in the primaries, one needs to first be seen as viable by the party.
Oh! Do tell!