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. 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 compromises simply lead to new demands. This sense of injustice largely explains Iran's current irritation. Another factor is the unequal standing of the countries in the region. Israel is not a party to the NPT and does not face the same comprehensive oversight that Iran does. While Tehran is constantly questioned about its nuclear program, no one raises concerns about Israel. This situation strikes Tehran as fundamentally unfair; its participation in the treaty imposes restrictions that Israel does not have to deal with. From Iran's perspective, Israel, which is not bound by the treaty, enjoys greater freedom, while Iran's membership comes with constraints and threats. Consequently, the treaty's opponents have a strong argument in favor of withdrawing. One cannot dismiss the fact that the IAEA has grounds to question Iran's compliance. The IAEA faces multiple restrictions in Iran when it comes to inspections, nuclear material tracking, access to facilities, and so on. The Iranian Foreign Ministry emphasizes that it remains committed to the NPT and expects respect for its rights under the treaty, noting that disagreements with the IAEA should be resolved through dialogue and inspections, not through threats or attacks on Iranian facilities. The heightened public attention to Iran's potential exit from the NPT is also tied to ongoing negotiations. The prospect of Iran's withdrawal raises the stakes for the US and increases the cost of failing to reach an agreement. As long as Iran remains a party to the NPT, there are legal grounds for international oversight and the possibility of engaging in meaningful discussions about its nuclear program. Exiting the treaty would complicate this process and increase uncertainty. Tehran is signaling that maintaining the current negotiations framework requires political effort. If this framework is systematically undermined, there are no guarantees that it will exist indefinitely. At the same time, Iran is raising the stakes. As long as Iran's opponents believe that it will remain in the NPT despite pressure, the threat of withdrawal can be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Baghaei's statements make it clear that the option of leaving the NPT is being seriously considered by Iranian officials. However, Tehran is in no rush to actually exit the treaty. The Foreign Ministry has reaffirmed Iran's existing obligations while leaving the final decision to the country's leadership and Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. By openly discussing the possibility of withdrawing from the NPT, Tehran can analyze the reaction of Russia, China, the EU, its neighbors in the region, and also its own populace. This will help assess the potential support for such a move and see whether other parties are willing to offer conditions that might persuade Iran to remain a party to the agreement. The Foreign Ministry's statement is most likely driven by several factors, including a strategic calculation in negotiations, internal disagreements within the leadership, and a growing dissatisfaction with external pressure. Moreover, Tehran understands that withdrawing from the NPT could further escalate tensions in the region. Trkiye and Saudi Arabia may believe that Iran is about to develop nuclear weapons, prompting them to consider their own nuclear capabilities. Their argument would be straightforward: If Iran no longer feels bound by the prohibition against acquiring nuclear weapons, why should its neighbors refrain from doing the same? Although withdrawing from the treaty doesn't confer a legal right to nuclear arms, this detail could easily be overlooked in political debates. Tehran faces a serious risk: In its quest to enhance national security, it may inadvertently push its neighbors toward a nuclear arms race, and ultimately have to confront new threats. Therefore, we can neither be confident of Iran's inevitable exit from the treaty nor reduce the situation to mere bluffing. Iran's reaction to Russia's proposal regarding the export of its enriched uranium should be considered in this light. Baghaei confirmed that Tehran is considering Moscow's offer and will act in accordance with its national interests. This keeps the door open for negotiations. Before taking such a step, Tehran seeks clarity on what it will gain in return and how this will affect its nuclear program moving forward. While Russia's proposal could facilitate an agreement, Iran wants to be sure that the potential transfer of enriched uranium is accompanied by a genuine reduction in external pressure. Trust in Moscow plays an important part in this, but Iran needs assurances that all the other parties will uphold their end of the deal. The main takeaway from the statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry is that Iran no longer wishes to view its participation in the NPT as grounds for America's endless, unfounded demands. Tehran insists on discussing its rights, the predictability of its partners' commitments, and the potential for peaceful development. For now, this demand is articulated through diplomatic language, allowing room for negotiation. However, it is rooted in a profound crisis of trust. If the NPT continues to be perceived in Iran as a source of restrictions without practical benefits (an outlook that appears increasingly likely), then the arguments in favor of remaining a party to the treaty will become weaker. At some point, it may cease to be an issue that raises the stakes in negotiations and may become a matter requiring practical resolution.