Iran Weighs Quitting Nuclear Treaty If War Resumes, Security Chief Warns — No Decision Yet

Iran is openly debating whether it should stay in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) if the war with the United States and Israel resumes, but no decision to leave the treaty — or to change its nuclear doctrine — has been taken. That distinction, stressed by Tehran’s own security chief in a television interview on Saturday, October 31, is the most important fact in a weekend of sharply worded warnings from both sides.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Iranian state television that a debate is now under way over whether Iran should keep its current nuclear doctrine if hostilities break out again. According to reports of the interview carried by TASS, Press TV and Iran International, he said it was unclear whether Iran would remain in the NPT after any future war, while also making clear that the leadership has not settled the question.

What Rezaei Actually Said

Rezaei’s remarks were reported in careful, conditional language. He was quoted as saying: “At some point, they may want to start a war, and it is unclear whether we will remain in the NPT after any future war. But while we are a party to it, we have 22 rights.” He added that the United States must first recognise those rights before any discussion of Iran’s nuclear programme could begin.

On the wider question of doctrine, he was equally explicit that nothing has been decided. “No new decision has been made yet,” he said, according to Press TV. “Of course, the discussion is now whether, if another war breaks out, we want to maintain the same doctrine as before.” He said there was popular demand for a change, but that the government had not yet made a new decision.

At some point, they may want to start a war, and it is unclear whether we will remain in the NPT after any future war.

That framing matters. The interview is evidence of a live debate inside Iran, not evidence of a withdrawal. A country does not leave the NPT by debating it on television, and Rezaei’s own words keep the door open in both directions: toward a negotiated settlement if Tehran’s conditions are met, and toward a harder line if war returns.

The Parliamentary Pressure

Alongside Rezaei’s interview, pressure to quit the treaty is building in parliament. Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said 10 proposals to withdraw from the treaty had been registered, according to the Fars news agency. Legislator Mahmoud Nabavian wrote on X on Saturday: “Now that we have paid the heavy costs of war and sanctions, it is time for the Iranian nation to withdraw from the NPT treaty and change the nuclear doctrine.”

Cleric Mohammad Javad Haj Ali Akbari used his Friday sermon to call for a review of Iran’s nuclear doctrine, describing it as a national demand, and the hardline Paydari Front had urged parliament on October 24 to quit the treaty. None of those statements is a government decision, and reports stressed that the country’s leadership has not responded to them and that the government’s official position — that it does not seek nuclear weapons — is unchanged.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Saturday that Iran was reviewing proposals concerning its nuclear programme and that a delegation had travelled to Qatar for further consultations, according to Iran International. The Qatari channel, alongside Pakistani mediation efforts, has been central to attempts to prevent a resumption of fighting, and the reported Iran-US draft on uranium transfer and reopening the Strait of Hormuz shows how far those back-channel discussions have already gone.

• Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970 as a non-nuclear-weapon state; the treaty has 191 parties.
• The treaty allows a party to withdraw on three months’ notice if extraordinary events have jeopardised its supreme interests.
• Withdrawal alone would not mean Iran was building a weapon, but it would end its NPT obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Rezaei said the Strait of Hormuz would not reopen and negotiations would not take place until Iran’s seven conditions are met.
• US President Donald Trump said on Friday the war was going to get wrapped up soon, but that Washington needed a guarantee Iran would never have a nuclear weapon.

What Leaving the Treaty Would Actually Mean

The NPT is the backbone of the global nuclear order. Iran signed it in 1968 and ratified it in 1970 as a non-nuclear-weapon state, and it is one of 191 parties to the treaty. One of its articles allows a country to withdraw with three months’ notice if it decides that extraordinary events have jeopardised its supreme interests. That notice period would give the United States, Israel and other governments time to reassess Tehran’s intentions — and time for diplomacy to try to stop a withdrawal from becoming permanent.

Leaving the treaty would not by itself mean Iran was building a bomb, but analysts quoted in assessments of the debate say it would almost certainly be read internationally as a signal that Iran intends to keep open the option of developing nuclear weapons, or to move toward doing so. It would also end Iran’s NPT obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, removing the inspection framework that, for all its limits during wartime, still anchors international monitoring of Iran’s programme.

That is why the debate is being watched so closely in Washington. The United States and Israel’s war on Iran, which began on February 28, is now in its ninth month, and efforts to reach a lasting settlement have so far been unsuccessful. Reports this week have said US officials have discussed possible renewed strikes after the November 3 midterm elections, while Trump himself has warned that remaining Iranian nuclear targets could be struck quickly and, in a separate speech in Daytona Beach on Friday, said the war was going to get wrapped up soon but that Washington needed a guarantee there would never be a nuclear weapon.

Diplomacy Still Open — On Conditions

Rezaei’s interview also contained a diplomatic opening, and it is easy to miss it behind the warnings. He said he had received and carefully reviewed a letter from Vice President Vance but had not yet sent a formal reply, and that the tone of the United States had completely changed. He described that change as a positive sign, while stressing that Iran was waiting to see a change in Washington’s behaviour.

He also set out Tehran’s conditions in blunt terms: the Strait of Hormuz would not reopen and negotiations with the United States would not take place until Iran’s seven conditions are met. Tehran’s conditions for talking again, as reported in recent coverage, include an end to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, sanctions relief and a guarantee of no further attacks. Washington’s condition, repeated by Trump, is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

The gap between those two positions is the negotiation. Mediators in Qatar and Pakistan are trying to close it, and Araghchi’s delegation travelling to Qatar for further consultations is part of that effort. At the same time, US warnings to Gulf allies about possible strikes after the midterms show that the military option has not been taken off the table, which is precisely the uncertainty driving the NPT debate in Tehran.

Iran’s military leadership has added its own warning. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei was reported to have ordered the Iranian military to respond to any threats without geographical restrictions, and an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman warned on Saturday that if Trump resorted to another adventure in the region with Israel, the flames of war would engulf a much wider area.

What to Watch Next

What to watch next is whether Rezaei replies to Vance’s letter, whether the Qatari consultations produce a concrete step on Hormuz or uranium, and whether parliament moves any of its 10 withdrawal proposals from registration toward a vote. The other test is whether the November 3 midterms change Washington’s calculations — toward talks, or toward the renewed strikes that officials have reportedly discussed. Until one of those paths is chosen, the NPT debate in Iran remains what Rezaei said it was: a debate, not a decision, with the treaty itself still in force and the three-month withdrawal clock not yet started.