Skip to main content

Need to Focus on Keeping Iran in NPT

        What was said in Tehran over this weekend should be carefully listened to by all governments involved with the U.S.-Israel war on Iran. Hopefully they will conclude that priority should be given to keeping Iran in the NPT. If Iran withdraws from NPT, the Trump administration will have in its legacy that it pushed the Islamic Republic to take that step, which they did not want to have to take. 
        Here is a compilation of what was said, as reported by Reuters and Iran International. 
Iran debates nuclear doctrine 
Mohsen Haj Ali Araki, Friday prayer leader, a member of the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Discernment Council, said Iran should reconsider its membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: “The Islamic Republic has suffered considerable harm and setbacks over the years because of its membership in and continued adherence to this treaty, while gaining no commensurate benefit from that membership.” Araki also urged participants in the state-organized nightly rallies to press officials to review the country’s NPT membership. 
        During a parliamentary session on Sunday [Nov 1], several Iranian lawmakers called for revising Tehran's nuclear doctrine, potentially abandoning its declared policy against developing nuclear weapons.         
        Ali Asghar Bagherzadeh said Iran should revise its nuclear doctrine to secure peace through military strength: “Peace is achieved through strength, and the time has come to change the nuclear doctrine. The slogan of the people mobilized in public squares is to withdraw from the NPT as soon as possible.”                     
        Mohammad Taghi Naghdali called on parliament to prioritize Iran's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, saying: “If until yesterday the people's slogan was 'Nuclear energy is our inalienable right,' today it has changed to 'Nuclear warheads are our inalienable right.” He called the NPT a “useless and harmful” treaty and urged lawmakers to make withdrawal a legislative priority. 
        Nasser Pejmanfar urged officials to make withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a serious priority, saying: “By withdrawing from the NPT, we would show them that our country will not give in to these pressures,” adding that he hoped the decision would be made in line with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s guidance. 
        Ali Nikzad, deputy parliament speaker, said that Iran has no intention of negotiating its nuclear program under any circumstances or pressure: “The window for negotiations with our adversaries is now closed because they have nothing new to offer,” adding that Tehran had given its adversaries enough opportunities to negotiate but had faced repeated breaches of commitments and what he called unlawful attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities.
        Mohsen Rezaei, Supreme National Security Council Secretary, acknowledged public calls for a change following attacks on the country's nuclear facilities but said “There has been no new decision regarding a change in the nuclear doctrine.” Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Rezaei said, “If there are to be nuclear negotiations, we will demand our rights.” 
        Rezaei attacked International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi, calling him a “mercenary and servant of the Zionist regime.” He said Iran's nuclear facilities had undergone extensive inspections and asserted that there had been no diversion in its nuclear program. 

        This last outburst by Rezaei against IAEA Director General Grossi and the IAEA is particularly disturbing. NPT state governments need to publicly support the IAEA and its Director General. Statements made in the IAEA Board of Governors and at the IAEA General Conference are not good enough is todays media world.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.

More on MOABs

MOAB is a 30,000-pound steel-alloy, precision-guided bomb designed to destroy subterranean targets. Its proper name is GBU-57, also known as “bunker buster” or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). MOP development dates to at least 2002. In 2007, the Air Force said it could penetrate up to 200 feet. The latest version, known as GBU-57E/B, has been in the operational inventory since 2016. In January 2018, the 4th upgrade was completed. Upgrades continue, especially improving the fuse.  The number available for operational use is not public; the initial order to Boeing was for 20. In February 2018, more were ordered. Some have been used in tests.  The small number of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers are the only aircraft that can deploy MOAB. There are no public reports of MOAB being used in combat. ( But it was reported that one was deployed in Afghanistan .)  Much of the impetus for the MOP program was provided by Iran’s push to bury its nuclear enrichment infrastructure deep und...

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...