Thirty-nine Iranian lawmakers have called on Iran's Supreme National Security Council to review the country's defense doctrine and consider adopting nuclear weapons as the risk of escalation with Israel continues to grow.
The MPs argue that Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei can reconsider his religious ban on nuclear weapons on the grounds that the circumstances have changed.
“To create deterrent capability and ensure national security, the ability to develop nuclear weapons is necessary,” Iranian MP Mohammad Reza Sabaghian said Wednesday. “While having nuclear weapons is possible for Israel, Iran must pursue nuclear weapons for self-defense.”
Iranian officials have repeatedly asserted that the country's nuclear program is peaceful, referring to a religious ruling by Khamenei prohibiting weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs.
But growing tensions between Iran and Israel has led some hardliners in Tehran to push for stronger measures, questioning the permanence of that ruling.
"In the context of jurisprudence, time and place can influence the modification of rulings, and secondary rulings can replace primary ones," another Iranian MP Hassanali Akhlaghi Amiri said on Tuesday.
The ruling, or fatwa, is not a legal document but an advisory opinion on Islamic law offered by a high-ranking cleric. It is not set in stone and can be changed at any time.
His remarks come as the hardline Javan newspaper, closely aligned with Iran's ultra-conservative factions, has recently called for a shift in Iran’s nuclear doctrine. Following Iranian missile attacks on Israel earlier this month, the outlet argued for an immediate "transformation" in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Javan also questioned whether Israel, if facing an existential threat, might issue threaten Iran with a nuclear attack. "Is the possibility of Israel issuing a clear or secret nuclear ultimatum out of the question?" the article asked, hinting at the possibility of nuclear escalation between the two adversaries.
Tehran’s stockpile of uranium, currently enriched to 60%, could potentially be refined to weapons-grade 90% in as little as two weeks. The shift in doctrine would likely be a signal of Iran's willingness to develop nuclear weapons if Israeli military actions threaten its core interests.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett recently urged Israel to seize the opportunity to cripple Iran’s nuclear program after last week's attack in which 181 ballistic missiles were sent by Iran to the Jewish state.
Iran’s ultra-hardliners have been increasingly vocal on social media, advocating for retaliatory actions against Israel and pushing for the development of a nuclear bomb.
Supporters of former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili have been particularly critical of Iran's current leadership, accusing President Masoud Pezeshkian of failing to adequately respond to Israeli airstrikes in Gaza and Lebanon, a result of the October 7 Hamas-backed attacks on Israel.
In May, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader stated that Iran would reconsider its nuclear doctrine if Israel threatens its existence.
In April, amid rising tensions with Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, a senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander also warned that Israeli threats could lead Iran to alter its nuclear policy.
The head of UN nuclear watchdog has warned that Iran may be weeks away from having enough weapons-grade nuclear material.
The comments come amid growing concern over possible Israeli retaliation for last week's Iranian missile attack, as Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi headed to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states for talks on Wednesday.
They followed discussions between Iran and Arab capitals last week on the sidelines of an Asia conference in Qatar, when Persian Gulf states sought to reassure Iran of their neutrality in any conflict between Tehran and Israel.
"Iran made it clear that any action by a Persian Gulf country against Tehran, whether through the use of airspace or military bases, will be regarded by Tehran as an action taken by the entire group, and Tehran will respond accordingly," the senior Iranian official told Reuters.
"The message emphasized the need for regional unity against Israel and the importance of securing stability," he said.
"It also made clear that any assistance to Israel, such as allowing the use of a regional country’s airspace for actions against Iran, is unacceptable."
The role of Persian Gulf Arab states will become more significant if an Israeli attack leads to US military involvement, as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all host US military facilities or troops.
Meanwhile Israel’s Channel 12 reported on Tuesday that the United States and Arab states have launched covert talks with Iran for a comprehensive ceasefire aimed at calming all war fronts at once.
The report said Israel isn’t currently involved in the initiative but added that senior Israeli officials have been informed about it.
The network noted that it isn’t clear how the efforts would affect Gaza, which is more complex than the rest of the fronts due to Israel’s desire to continue fighting even after a potential hostage deal and Hamas’s demand for an Israeli withdrawal in any deal.
One of the senior Israeli officials was quoted by Channel 12 as saying: “We are currently in a position of power, a ceasefire will be on our terms, including a [Hezbollah] withdrawal beyond the Litani [River] and the dismantling of all military Hezbollah sites in areas near the border.”
US President Joe Biden is expected to hold a telephone call on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that will include discussion of any plans to strike Iran, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke with Reuters.
The official said Iran did not discuss the issue of Persian Gulf Arab oil producers raising output if Iranian production was disrupted during any escalation.
The likelihood of Israel targeting Iran’s oil sector has been widely discussed since Jerusalem made its intention of retaliation clear. However, Israel can target Iran’s export capacity or the domestic energy sector by targeting refineries.
Biden has said he would think about alternatives to striking Iranian oil fields if he were in Israel's shoes. Any such attack would drive up global oil prices just weeks before the US presidential election that can hurt Vice President Kamala Harris’s chances.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, which is de-facto led by Saudi Arabia, has enough spare oil capacity to make up any loss of Iranian supply if an Israeli retaliation knocks out some of the country's facilities.
Much of OPEC's spare capacity is in the Persian Gulf region. Iran has not threatened to attack the oil facilities of its Arab neighbors but has previously warned that if "Israel supporters" intervene directly their interests in the region would be targeted.
Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia has had a political rapprochement with Tehran since 2023, which has helped ease regional tensions, but relations remain difficult.
Saudi Arabia has been wary of an Iranian strike on its oil facilities since a 2019 attack on its key refinery at Abqaiq briefly shut down more than 5% of global oil supply. Iran denied involvement.
A Western diplomat in the Persian Gulf told Reuters that during Thursday's meeting in Doha, Iran made clear that Tehran had called for regional unity in the face of an Israeli attack and that it considered neutrality of Gulf states a bare minimum.
The diplomat said Iran had made clear that Tehran would keep a close eye on how each Persian Gulf country responded in the case of an Israeli attack, and also how US bases housed in their countries were used.
President Massoud Pezeshkian, elected on a "reformist" platform, recently held a meeting with his chief political adversaries, the ultraconservative Paydari Party, in what appeared to be an invitation to form an undeclared coalition with the very opponents of his "national reconciliation" agenda. This unexpected move has fueled speculation about potential realignments within Iran’s political landscape and raised questions about the future of Pezeshkian’s reform oriented political promises.
This coalition is not welcomed by Pezeshkian's "reformist" allies, who played a key role in securing his victory in one of the most tepid and contentious elections in the country's modern history. Meanwhile, ultraconservatives did everything in their power to block his path, backing his main rival, Saeed Jalili, as their preferred candidate for the presidency of the Islamic Republic.
While Jalili and other hardliners continue their fierce rivalry with Pezeshkian, the President seems to have attempted to win the hearts and minds of the party's rank and file.
The government-owned Iranian Students New Agency (ISNA) reported on Monday that Pezeshkian has held a meeting "with a group of the Paydari Front's members and representatives" during which he listened to their views on various issues and explained his national reconciliation doctrine as well as the reasons behind the country's political, economic and cultural problems, according to ISNA. This is typical Iranian official reporting which is always devoid of details and elaboration.
However, Pezeshkian emphasized to his Paydari Party guests that his vision of national reconciliation "is not a choice, but an essential requirement for addressing the country’s challenges and safeguarding it against foreign threats."
Until recently, Majles Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf was regarded as Pezeshkian's strongest ally in Parliament. However, growing opposition among lawmakers to the appointment of two parliament members as governors of Kordestan and Fars Provinces may have pushed Pezeshkian closer to Ghalibaf's rival, the ultraconservative Paydari Party.
The opposition, however, seems to center primarily on the fact that the two governors were appointed before their formal resignation from the Majles was approved. In other words, Ghalibaf’s frustration may stem from the President's failure to consult him in advance about the appointments, rather than any deeper political disagreement.
According to ISNA, Pezeshkian told Paydari members at the meeting: "My only purpose is to solve the country's problems, and I am calling on the followers of all schools of thought to cooperate with us rather than fight us."
Some reformists however have criticized Pezeshkian for seeking to cooperate with the ultraconservatives. Reformist journalist Ali Talebzadeh wrote in a post on X: "Although it is the Pezeshkian'd administration, all of its middle and senior managers come from the Raisi administration. Another reformist journalist Mohammad Aghazadeh wrote: "What would Jalili have done had he won the election that Pezeshkian is not doing? Everyone acts in the same way that the system wants them to act. Nothing more. There are no differences between Iranian politicians." He added sarcastically: "That is the only meaning of national reconciliation."
Highlighting the irony of reconciliation among political rivals without addressing the public's grievances, another user commented: "They talk about national reconciliation, yet they beat protesting pensioners outside the President's Office. They threaten a university student, barring her from continuing her education for a second time, despite promises of reconciliation. Do you still believe it matters who holds the office of President?"
Reformist politicians, however, have a different idea. Cleric Mohammad Ali Abtahi wrote that "I believe Pezeshkian's national reconciliation is a continuation of [former reformist President Mohammad] Khatami's reforms. The people are tired of disputes between various parties. I hope Pezeshkian's dialogue with other political groups is mindful of social realities. Most people ignored the idea of reconciliation by not voting in the elections. We need to find a way to start a dialogue with them."