Iran’s next move could leave the Middle East looking for the bomb

Sanctions, strikes, and broken commitments are pushing Tehran to question whether staying in the NPT still serves its interests In Tehran, discussions about Iran’s potential withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) are growing increasingly urgent. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei has recently acknowledged that the issue is being seriously considered by Iranian officials. His statements lend significant political weight to the discourse around Iran’s potential withdrawal from the NPT: One can no longer downplay it as something proposed by hardliners or fringe groups. While Baghaei also reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to its membership in the NPT and the associated obligations, he made it clear that the possibility of exiting the treaty is being considered. This situation has been triggered by Tehran’s mounting frustration. Iran finds it increasingly difficult to justify why participation in the NPT demands constant concessions from it, while the country’s rights remain negotiable. Despite Iran’s regular affirmation of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, disputes persist and external pressure continues to mount. This gives Iran reason to question the practical value of the agreement. The Iranian leadership is signaling that its willingness to remain a member of the NPT cannot be viewed as unconditional. The NPT was designed to maintain balance: Non-nuclear states refrain from developing nuclear weapons and receive international guarantees, while their right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy is recognized by the treaty; nuclear powers, meanwhile, pursue negotiations toward nuclear disarmament. For Tehran, the critical issue lies in the balance of rights and responsibilities. Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology does not exclude the international monitoring of its nuclear program. But there is a difference between inspections and demands to relinquish nuclear technologies, and Iran believes that this line is increasingly being blurred.

A pivotal aspect of the NPT is the so-called ‘nuclear deal’ signed in 2015. Iran agreed to impose significant limitations on its nuclear program and accepted extensive international oversight in exchange for relief from sanctions. In 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had implemented the necessary measures to put the agreement into effect. However, in 2018, the US withdrew from the deal and reinstated sanctions. This unfortunate experience casts a shadow on how Tehran views any potential future compromises. Iran accepted the restrictions, but the change in Washington’s policy undermined many of the anticipated benefits of the deal. Read more A new political storm is brewing for Erdogan Strikes against Iran and its nuclear facilities have further compounded the crisis of trust, raising concerns over physical security. The IAEA reported attacks on several Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025; this shows that even with international guarantees, the facilities remain vulnerable. It’s true that the NPT does not offer military protection or immunity from attacks. However, the main problem for Iranian political circles is that the international oversight of Iran’s nuclear program has failed to ensure a diplomatic settlement of disagreements. This raises a poignant question for Tehran. If cooperation with international institutions does not prevent sanctions and strikes against Iran, then what argument can the supporters of the treaty bring up in favor of remaining a party to the NPT? The treaty’s supporters outline its theoretical benefits, but the country assesses its results. As the costs of external pressure rise, it becomes increasingly hard to convince anyone that further concessions will enhance security. Instead, there’s a growing perception that new comprom