From Parliament to Leadership; A New Chapter in Iran’s Nuclear Debate
WANA (Sep 24) – For the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic, 71 members of parliament have signed an open letter addressed to the heads of the three branches of government and the Supreme National Security Council, calling for a review of Iran’s nuclear policy. The letter explicitly proposes that the “construction of nuclear weapons” be considered as part of the country’s deterrence doctrine.
The letter directly refers to the 2010 religious decree (fatwa) issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader, which officially declared the production and use of nuclear weapons forbidden under Islamic law. That decree had long served as the foundation of Iran’s official nuclear stance.
At the time, nuclear weapons were ruled out entirely. But the lawmakers now argue that “changing circumstances” could turn a primary ruling (a permanent law under normal conditions) into a secondary one (a temporary ruling in times of necessity or threat). Such reasoning effectively opens the door to a new debate over redefining one of Iran’s most critical security policies.
The key point in the letter, however, lies not in religious jurisprudence but in the distinction the authors draw between “use” and “construction and possession.” In their view, the fatwa prohibited employment of nuclear weapons, while merely possessing them for deterrence has a different nature and could serve as a shield against the threats posed by the “front of global arrogance.”
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visits the Iran nuclear achievements in Tehran, Iran June 11, 2023. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
The Logic of Deterrence Against Dual Threats
Given recent attacks on Iran by two nuclear-armed powers, the lawmakers argue that reliance on conventional weapons cannot guarantee the country’s existential security.
Some analysts believe that only “nuclear balance” can prevent Iran from facing disintegration or destruction. This reasoning reflects the classic logic of deterrence—the idea that the threat of severe retaliation prevents attack. It is visible in the case of India and Pakistan: despite enduring border tensions, the two rivals have avoided all-out war since acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia provides another example: during the Ukraine crisis and the annexation of Crimea, the West refrained from direct confrontation with Moscow due to its nuclear power.
Iran Must Acquire Nuclear Weapons
WANA (Sep 30) – In light of the ongoing massacre of Gaza and Lebanon by the Israeli regime, a serious question has emerged in public discourse: Is it not time for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? Israel, which has long been armed with nuclear weapons, feels no limitations in its actions. The genocide in […]
A Shift in Public Sentiment
Changing attitudes within Iranian society are also noteworthy. In the days following the recent war, online polls conducted by various individuals indicated growing support for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. The wars and threats from the United States and Israel have pushed public opinion closer to the idea of “nuclear security.” Some analyses even suggest a degree of emerging international legitimacy for a potential Iranian nuclear test. But the central question remains: can this public sentiment—largely fueled by emotions in the wake of crises—serve as a solid foundation for a long-term policy shift?
Supporters of the nuclear path argue that nuclear deterrence could bring Iran lasting stability—a prerequisite for attracting investment and consolidating its geopolitical position.
Opponents, however, warn that such a move would trigger a fresh wave of sanctions, political pressure, and global isolation. Both scenarios carry weight, and choosing between them requires a careful cost–benefit calculation.
Yet Iran’s security does not necessarily depend solely on “going nuclear.” Strengthening air defense and missile capabilities, expanding cyber and intelligence power, and forging regional security alliances could all raise deterrence levels without the political and economic price of building a bomb.
The Supreme Leader’s Position: A Firm Rejection or Room for Reinterpretation?
Last night, Iran’s Supreme Leader, in a clear and unequivocal statement, declared: “We do not have a nuclear bomb, we will not have one, and we have no intention of using nuclear weapons.” This statement can be seen as a direct response to recent speculation about a shift in Iran’s nuclear policy, delivered precisely after the letter from the 71 lawmakers—and effectively rejecting the path toward nuclear weapons.
Still, his choice of words (“we do not need” and “we will not use”) has caught analysts’ attention. One interpretation is that his remarks stress the rejection of “use” rather than covering all aspects of “construction and possession.” Another reading sees this as a continuation of his consistent position over the years: ruling out any pursuit of nuclear arms from the outset.
In this way, the Supreme Leader’s words carry two layers of meaning: on the one hand, a firm rejection of nuclear weapons in response to the letter; on the other, an opening for varied interpretations within political and expert circles.
Iran’s Supreme Leader: Negotiations with the U.S. Government Bring No Benefit to Us
WANA (Sep 23) – In a televised address to the Iranian nation, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution stated: Under current circumstances, negotiations with the U.S. government bring no benefit to us, nor will they avert any harm from us. Ayatollah Khamenei, in his televised address to the people, spoke about the unity […]
Several major questions remain:
Would pursuing nuclear weapons expose Iran to another wave of sanctions and global pressure?
Could nuclear deterrence, instead of reducing threats, trigger a dangerous regional arms race?
Is domestic consensus alone sufficient to override international commitments and the legal costs of such a decision?
And does the Leader’s renewed emphasis on rejecting nuclear weapons mark the end of this debate—or merely the start of a new phase in Iran’s political and religious dispute?
New mural at Tehran’s Enghelab Square: Iran’s next-generation centrifuges and nuclear capabilities, accompanied by the slogan “Knowledge is Power.” 27th Aug 2025. Social Media / WANA News Agency
The recent remarks by the Leader provide partial answers, at least reaffirming at the official level Iran’s continued policy of “not pursuing nuclear weapons.” Yet the range of interpretations, combined with internal and external pressures, suggests the debate is far from closed and will persist as a strategic struggle within Iranian politics.
The letter from the 71 lawmakers, regardless of these questions, underscores a clear reality: Iran’s nuclear debate has entered a new phase. It is no longer merely about enrichment levels or international agreements, but about a sensitive point where some political elites openly speak of the “necessity of nuclear deterrence.”
Now, the ball is in the court of Iran’s top decision-making bodies—the Supreme National Security Council, the Supreme Leader, and the institutions responsible for defining the country’s defense doctrine. Whether this letter results in a strategic decision or remains a political warning, one thing is certain: Iran’s nuclear discourse, after this letter and the Leader’s remarks, will never again be the same as before.
