After the War, Calls for a Nuclear Bomb Grow Open in Tehran as Iran's Policymakers Split Over the Path Ahead

What was once a deeply secret and strictly forbidden subject in Iranian politics is now at the centre of open discussion. After a long and bloody eight-month war with Washington and Tel Aviv, Tehran's policymakers and lawmakers are now openly demanding the building of a nuclear bomb, without any attempt to hide it.

Yet this is the same country where a religious fatwa by former supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once carried the force of law, completely banning the making or stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. For years Tehran tried to convince the world that its nuclear programme was only for peaceful, civilian purposes. The war has overturned that old position.

On February 28 this year, Iran was shaken by the first wave of sudden strikes by US and Israeli warplanes. Those attacks not only destroyed military and nuclear facilities, but also killed many ordinary civilians and top military leaders including Khamenei.

Washington later scaled back direct large-scale military action and chose the path of naval blockade and economic pressure. However, US President Donald Trump recently rejected outright Iran's proposal for a seven-day ceasefire and threatened new attacks. Washington's message is clear: any deal requires Iran to significantly reduce its level of uranium enrichment.

It is in the midst of this uncertainty and existential crisis that a fierce debate has begun inside Tehran. One side argues Iran has already paid a very high price for its nuclear programme. Parliament member Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani and senior security figures such as Mohsen Rezaei believe there is no longer any time to step back, and that the country must move towards acquiring a nuclear weapon to protect itself from its enemies.

Conservative analyst Davoud Modarresian argues that acquiring a nuclear bomb is today a bigger and more urgent necessity than bread and livelihood — the only guarantee of the country's survival. They echo Trump's old remark, in which, citing North Korea's Kim Jong Un as an example, Trump said that if someone has 11 nuclear missiles, it is wise to maintain relations with them.

But there are strong arguments on the other side as well. Former vice president Mohammad Mokhber strongly opposed the idea, saying those who control a vital waterway such as the Strait of Hormuz do not need a nuclear bomb. A bomb, he argued, can at most kill 50,000 to 100,000 people, but by closing the Strait of Hormuz the entire world economy and the lives of hundreds of millions can be held hostage.

Journalist Sina Jahani and analyst Amir Ali Abolfath argue that this rush to build a nuclear weapon amounts to walking straight into Israel's trap. Before the bomb-making work could even be finished, American bombs would destroy what remains of the country's infrastructure — such a suicidal path can offer no protection.

The real question, however, is whether Iran could build a bomb even if it wanted to. In the war, the core infrastructure of Iran's uranium enrichment has been left almost crippled. Main underground plants such as Natanz and Fordow have been severely damaged.

The biggest mystery surrounds a stockpile of about 440.19 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said it has had no accurate information about the whereabouts of this large stockpile for more than a year.

US and Israeli intelligence officials claim Tehran has hidden thousands of centrifuges and this uranium in a secret, fortified 'Pickaxe Mountain' tunnel located 80 to 100 metres deep in granite rock. That is why Trump has recently warned that an operation may have to be carried out there.

As a result, this open debate inside Tehran over Iran's nuclear future after the war is no longer just a matter of the country's domestic politics — it is tied to the security of the entire region and to the question of Washington's next move.