 "Can Iran withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and go nuclear?")
Tehran is considering a step which will undoubtedly have far-reaching global consequences: leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The move, still in its early legislative stages, comes amid fresh criticism from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a growing conflict with Israel.
While Iranian officials continue to reject any intention to pursue nuclear weapons, this development has put that narrative in limbo.
Iran considers exiting the NPT
Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that lawmakers in Tehran are preparing a bill that could move the country toward withdrawing from the NPT.
The proposal, still in its preliminary phase, was prompted by what officials described as hostile international developments.
“In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision. Government has to enforce parliament bills but such a proposal is just being prepared and we will coordinate in the later stages with parliament,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei at a press briefing.
He suggested that the recent IAEA censure, along with Israel’s military assault on Iran, were directly influencing Iran’s strategic direction.
Although Iran’s state media noted that no final decision had yet been made, and that parliamentary discussions remained at an early legislative stage, the introduction of such a bill signals a shift in Tehran’s nuclear policy posture — especially given its consistent prior insistence on remaining within the NPT framework.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also reaffirmed Iran’s adherence to a religious edict issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prohibiting nuclear weapons, maintaining that Iran’s atomic ambitions are strictly civilian.
What the Non-Proliferation Treaty entails
The NPT, established in 1970, is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while permitting the development of peaceful nuclear energy under international oversight.
The treaty has three primary pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear technology. A total of 191 countries are parties to the treaty, making it one of the most widely supported arms control agreements globally.
Only five countries — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — are officially recognized under the treaty as nuclear weapons states. These five, defined as having tested nuclear weapons before January 1, 1967, are also the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
In contrast, countries like India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the NPT. Israel, while never confirming or denying its nuclear arsenal, is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and operates outside the treaty’s framework.
Importantly, the NPT includes an exit clause.
Article X allows any party to withdraw from the treaty if it determines that “extraordinary events… have jeopardised the supreme interests of its country.”
A three-month notice must be given to all other treaty members and the UN Security Council. Since the treaty’s inception, only one country — North Korea — has exercised this right, announcing its withdrawal in 2003.
It went on to test its first nuclear device in 2006.
What prompted Iran’s potential withdrawal
Iran has been under increasing international pressure over its nuclear programme, which it maintains is peaceful and aimed at energy generation. However, on June 13, the IAEA’s 35-member Board of Governors passed a resolution stating that Iran was in breach of its NPT obligations — the first such formal censure in nearly two decades.
The resolution followed a May 31 report circulated among member states alleging that Tehran had failed to provide full and timely cooperation, particularly regarding unexplained uranium traces found at several undeclared sites.
The report concluded that Iran had not offered credible explanations for the presence of nuclear material at locations that were not disclosed under its safeguards agreements. The agency indicated that these traces likely originated from activities more than 20 years ago.
While the IAEA highlighted the need for greater transparency, Iranian officials strongly rejected the findings. Iran’s Foreign Ministry and its Atomic Energy Organisation denounced the resolution as politically driven and lacking in technical merit.
Following the resolution, Israel launched military strikes on Iranian territory, targeting nuclear-related infrastructure. These attacks, beginning June 13, have been cited by Iranian officials as the trigger for the parliamentary move toward NPT withdrawal.
“Those voting for the resolution prepared the ground for the attack,” said Baghaei, emphasizing that such developments “naturally affect the strategic decisions of the state.” Iran responded with retaliatory missile strikes, further intensifying the regional confrontation.
What Iran’s withdrawal may mean for the NPT
Iran’s invocation of the NPT’s Article X, allowing withdrawal in the event of extraordinary threats to national security, may be grounded in its experience of recent direct military strikes and the killing of nuclear scientists.
Analysts have commented that if such attacks and assassinations of key personnel don’t qualify as threats to “supreme interests,” then it is unclear what does.
Experts warn that if Iran follows a similar trajectory to North Korea, it could irreversibly damage the credibility of the NPT and encourage other countries to reassess their commitments to the treaty.
Some observers have noted that Iran’s potential exit could be a watershed moment for global non-proliferation, one that might encourage further departures and increase proliferation risks globally.
What happens if Iran exits the NPT
If Iran formally exits the NPT, it would no longer be legally obligated to allow inspections by the IAEA. This loss of access would eliminate international oversight of Iran’s nuclear facilities, opening the possibility for unrestricted uranium enrichment and advancement toward weaponisation.
While Iranian officials continue to deny any intention to build a bomb, critics argue that leaving the treaty would signal a shift toward such capabilities.
“The Zionist regime is the only possessor of weapons of mass destruction in the region,” Baghaei said, pointing to Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal as a key point of contention.
Iran has long argued that it is being unfairly targeted by international institutions while a non-signatory state like Israel faces no scrutiny.
The implications of an Iranian withdrawal extend beyond its borders. A nuclear-armed Iran could spark a regional arms race, prompting countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to explore their own nuclear options.
Such a development would undermine what little nuclear restraint remains in a region already plagued by geopolitical rivalry, sectarian divisions and proxy warfare.
Israel has also repeatedly signalled that it considers Iranian nuclear capability an existential threat.
As history shows — from the 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor to current operations against Iran — Tel Aviv is likely to take preemptive military action should Iran appear close to achieving nuclear breakout.
The threat of a wider, potentially direct military conflict cannot be discounted. Iran’s move comes as the NPT nears its next review conference, scheduled for 2026.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
