After the War, Calls to Build a Nuclear Bomb Are Being Made Openly in Tehran, and Iran Is Divided
What was once a closely guarded and strictly forbidden subject in Iranian politics is now at the centre of open debate. After a bloody eight-month war with Washington and Tel Aviv, a section of Tehran's policymakers and lawmakers is now demanding, without any concealment, that Iran build a nuclear bomb.
Yet this is the same country where a religious fatwa by the late supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once had the force of law, completely prohibiting the manufacture 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 28 February this year, Iran was shaken by the first wave of sudden strikes by US and Israeli warplanes. Those attacks destroyed not only military and nuclear installations; Khamenei himself, along with top military leaders and many civilians, lost their lives. Washington later reduced direct large-scale military action and chose the path of naval blockade and economic pressure.
But US President Donald Trump has recently rejected outright Iran's proposal for a seven-day ceasefire and threatened fresh attacks. Washington's position is clear: for any deal, the level of uranium enrichment must be reduced significantly.
It is in the middle of this existential crisis that a fierce debate has begun inside Tehran. One side argues that Iran has already paid a very high price for its nuclear programme. Parliament member Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani and top security figures such as Mohsen Rezaei believe there is no room left to retreat; to survive against the enemy, Iran should take the path of acquiring nuclear weapons.
In the words of conservative analyst Davoud Modarresian, acquiring a nuclear bomb is today a bigger and more urgent necessity than bread and livelihood—the only guarantee of the country's survival. This camp echoes Trump's own old remark, when, citing North Korea's Kim Jong Un, 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 of the coin. Former vice president Mohammad Mokhber has strongly opposed the idea, saying that those who control a vital waterway like the Strait of Hormuz have no need of a nuclear bomb. A bomb, he argued, can kill at most 50,000 to 100,000 people, whereas blocking the Strait of Hormuz can hold the entire world economy and the lives of millions hostage.
Critics such as journalist Sina Jahani and analyst Amir Ali Abulfat believe this frenzy to build a nuclear weapon amounts to walking straight into Israel's trap. They fear Iran could face fresh attacks before the work of building a bomb is even finished.
At the centre of the debate lies a fundamental question: is a nuclear weapon the way to prevent a repeat of the destruction Iran has seen in war, or would it open the door to even greater destruction? Neither side has yet been able to persuade the other.
The open debate is also being closely watched internationally. If Iran formally decides to build a bomb, it could change not only the Middle East but the entire global nuclear non-proliferation system.
For now, much depends on which way Tehran's decision goes—the prospects of a ceasefire, the future of any deal with Washington, and the region's security situation. The very openness of this debate shows that the war has brought Iranian politics to a turning point from which returning to the old path will not be easy.
