Iran debates dropping its ban on nuclear weapons if the war returns — but no decision has been taken

Iran is openly debating whether to drop its longstanding ban on nuclear weapons if the war with the United States resumes, its top security official has said — while stressing that no decision has been taken.

Major General Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television on Saturday 31 October that the question is now being discussed at the highest level: if fighting breaks out again, should Iran keep the same nuclear doctrine it has held for years? His answer, repeated several times in the interview, was that nothing has been decided. “No new decision has been made yet,” he said.

The timing is delicate. The war, which began on 28 February 2026 with American and Israeli strikes, is now in its ninth month. Washington wants a guarantee that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon; Tehran will not discuss its nuclear programme until its own conditions are met. With American midterm elections on 3 November, both sides are weighing a deal against another round of strikes.

At a glance

What happened: Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, told state television on 31 October that Iran is debating whether to keep its ban on nuclear weapons if hostilities resume, but that no decision has been taken. He also said he has read a letter from US Vice President JD Vance and has not replied.

Why it matters: It is the first time a senior Iranian official has confirmed in public that dropping the ban is under discussion. That raises the stakes for the talks under way through Qatari and Pakistani mediators, since Washington’s central demand is a guarantee that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.

What happens next: Nothing changes immediately. No bill has been voted on and the government has not approved a treaty withdrawal. The next markers are the US midterms on 3 November, whether Tehran answers the Vance letter, and whether parliament takes up the withdrawal proposals already registered there.

What Rezaei actually said

Rezaei, a major general and former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, sits at the centre of Iran’s security decisions as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. His Saturday-night interview was the fullest account yet of Tehran’s nuclear thinking after eight months of war.

On the doctrine itself, he was careful. “Of course, the discussion is now whether, if another war breaks out, we want to maintain the same doctrine as before,” he said, adding that neither the government nor the leadership has formally adopted any change.

Iran, he said, had cooperated fully with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, and its programme was peaceful — yet its nuclear sites were still bombed. “When people see these realities, they ask why we should continue under the same conditions,” he said. “There is a popular demand for changing the nuclear doctrine. The people of Iran have the right to express their demands, but the government has not yet made a new decision.”

On diplomacy, Rezaei confirmed he has received and studied a letter from US Vice President JD Vance, but has not yet answered it. He declined to say what it contains, noting that the American side had not made it public. He did say the tone was new. “Their tone has completely changed, and this is a very good sign,” he said.

There are two accounts of what the letter was about. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reported that Vance sent it to explore resuming talks. President Donald Trump said it concerned medical supplies reaching Iran under the US naval blockade, not revived peace talks, and that it was not written at his direction.

Rezaei also set out Tehran’s conditions for any return to talks: Iran will not negotiate until its terms are fulfilled and a genuine change in the American approach is shown. The Strait of Hormuz, he added, is “not likely to be reopened unless Iran’s conditions are met.”

The debate inside Iran

The argument is not new, but it has moved into open politics. On Saturday, lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian wrote that “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”, according to Al Jazeera.

Ten proposals to withdraw from the treaty have been registered in parliament, according to the Fars news agency. The figure was given by Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee — a different person from the security chief of the same surname. The hardline Paydari Front asked parliament to withdraw on 24 October.

Iran’s official position, however, has not moved. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said in June that lawmakers were preparing a withdrawal bill and that “in light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision”. President Masoud Pezeshkian has said policy still follows the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s religious ruling against weapons of mass destruction. That ruling, known as a fatwa, is the foundation of Iran’s stated ban: a fatwa is a religious ruling, and this one says nuclear weapons are forbidden. Rezaei reaffirmed the commitment to the fatwa in an interview with Al Jazeera in September, while warning that continued American and Israeli pressure could lead Tehran to reconsider its treaty membership.

What the NPT is, in plain English

The NPT is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the main international agreement on nuclear weapons. Iran signed it in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, as a country without nuclear weapons. It is one of 191 parties to the treaty.

The deal at the heart of the treaty is simple. Countries without nuclear weapons promise not to build or acquire them, and they accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency to check that they are keeping that promise. In return, they may use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity and medical treatment.

Iran’s ban on nuclear weapons therefore rests on two things: the religious ruling, and its membership of this treaty. Leaving the treaty would remove the second of those two, and that is why the debate matters so much.

The treaty itself allows a country to leave. One of its articles says a member can withdraw with three months’ notice if it decides that extraordinary events have put its supreme interests at risk. The country only has to notify the UN Security Council; it does not need the Council’s permission.

What leaving the treaty would actually do

Leaving the treaty would not automatically mean Iran had a nuclear weapon, or was building one. But experts say it would almost certainly be read around the world as a signal that Tehran wanted to keep the option open, or was moving towards it. That reading alone would raise pressure on Iran and increase the risk of military action.

It would also end the inspection system that still applies to Iran. The atomic energy agency has not had access to key Iranian sites since strikes in June 2025 on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities. When the agency’s chief, Rafael Grossi, briefed the Security Council on 27 October, he said the agency still could not confirm that none of Iran’s safeguarded nuclear material had been diverted. Inspectors were working at Bushehr, the one site where the agency still had access.

Washington’s position

President Trump, speaking ahead of the midterm elections, has been sounding upbeat about an end to the war while holding firm on the nuclear question. “It’s going to get wrapped up soon,” he told Kansas City radio station KCMO on Friday 30 October. “We need a guarantee there’ll never be a nuclear weapon.” He did not say how the war would end. He has also said the United States would not strike Iran before the elections on 3 November.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Admiral Brad Cooper, the commander of US Central Command, briefed Trump in person at the White House on options for renewed strikes. US commanders are preparing for possible Iranian retaliation against American bases, Israel and Gulf states.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Trump “has not yet made a decision” about resuming military action. The Associated Press reported this week that US officials told several Middle Eastern countries and regional allies to prepare for renewed strikes after the vote, while two diplomats briefed on the discussions said Trump had not made a final decision.

The Strait of Hormuz and the talks

The Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel between Iran and Oman through which a large share of the world’s seaborne oil passes, is the most powerful card Tehran holds.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a new proposal has been reached with mediators that would shorten the time to fully reopen the strait to two days. Last month he proposed reopening it within a week if the United States lifted its blockade, released frozen assets and waived sanctions on Iranian oil sales. That proposal was rejected.

Rezaei added a new condition of his own. Ships on a reopened strait, he said, would have to travel on a route agreed upon by Iran and Oman, and “everyone passing through this waterway will do so under Iranian management.”

Qatari mediation is continuing in parallel. Iran’s official IRNA news agency reported that a Qatari delegation, headed by a senior adviser to Qatar’s prime minister, arrived in Tehran on Friday. Qatar presented Iran with a draft agreement on Sunday, but a senior Iranian official rejected the proposals as unacceptable.

Its seven conditions include an end to hostilities on all fronts, the release of frozen assets and the lifting of the naval blockade; Tehran has also demanded sanctions relief and a guarantee of no further attacks. Washington, meanwhile, wants the nuclear programme addressed from the start of any talks. That gap over the order of things is what the mediators are trying to close.

Warnings from the top

The same day Rezaei spoke, Iran’s supreme leader issued a warning of his own. Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei said that “any kind and level of threat” from the United States or Israel should face an immediate response without geographic limits, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Khamenei, who has not been seen publicly since the war began, made the comments while meeting military chiefs. He became supreme leader after the opening strikes killed his father, according to the Associated Press.

Rezaei echoed the warning. Writing on X, he said any attack would bring “devastating blows on the aggressor using new weapons.” In the television interview he said Iran was determined to end the war in a way that would deter any future attack.

Why this matters for Pakistan

Pakistan has a direct stake in how this ends. It has been acting as a go-between in the mediation effort, and its military said on Friday it was “cautiously optimistic” about the talks, according to Al Jazeera. At the UN Security Council on 27 October, Pakistan’s ambassador, Usman Jadoon, said Pakistan was concerned the Iran nuclear file had “sharply deteriorated”, and urged all sides to exercise restraint.

Pakistan’s leverage, however, is limited. It is not a party to the NPT — India, Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan all sit outside the treaty — so it cannot use the treaty’s rules as a lever in the way a member state could. Its role has been that of mediator rather than guarantor.

There is also an economic stake. Pakistan buys fuel on world markets, so a shipping chokepoint in the Gulf and higher oil prices feed into the petrol, diesel and power bills households already pay. A war that drags on, or resumes after the American elections, would keep that pressure in place.

Frequently asked questions

Has Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon?

No. No decision has been taken — Iran’s security chief has confirmed only that a debate is under way about whether to keep the ban if the war resumes. The government’s position is unchanged, parliament has not voted on any withdrawal bill, and the president has said policy still follows the late supreme leader’s religious ruling against weapons of mass destruction.

What is the NPT?

It is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the main international agreement on nuclear weapons. Countries without them promise not to build them and accept inspections to prove it. In return they may use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, such as power and medicine. Iran signed in 1968 and ratified in 1970, and is one of 191 parties.

What would happen if Iran left the NPT?

Iran could withdraw with three months’ notice, without anyone’s permission. Inspections would end, and other governments would very likely read the move as a sign that Tehran wanted to keep the nuclear weapons option open. It would not automatically mean Iran had a bomb, but it would raise international pressure and the risk of military action.

What is the letter from JD Vance?

The US vice president sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, the Wall Street Journal and Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported. Rezaei has confirmed he has read it and has not replied, and says its tone has “completely changed”. Trump has said the outreach concerned medical supplies reaching Iran under the naval blockade, not revived peace talks, while Tasnim reported it was sent to explore resuming talks. Its contents have not been made public.

What does the United States want?

Washington’s central demand is a guarantee that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Trump says the war will be “wrapped up soon” and that there will be no strikes before the midterms on 3 November, but he has not ruled out new strikes afterwards. His secretary of state has said no final decision on resuming military action has been made.

What happens next?

Three things are worth watching. First, the American midterms on 3 November, after which Trump has said strikes are possible. Second, whether Tehran answers the Vance letter and whether the Qatari and Pakistani mediation produces a deal. Third, whether Iran’s parliament takes up the ten withdrawal proposals already registered there.

The debate in Tehran is a warning, not a verdict. Iran’s leaders are telling the world that the ban on nuclear weapons, which has held for decades, is no longer beyond question if the war returns. They are also saying, just as clearly, that they have not decided to drop it. Which message matters more will be decided in the coming days — at the ballot box in America, at the negotiating table in Doha, and in the parliament in Tehran.

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.

Sources

• https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/international/4000191-iran-debating-whether-to-maintain-ban-on-nuclear-weapons-security-chief-says?amp (Reuters syndicated feed via Devdiscourse, 31 October 2026)
• https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/10/31/779646/irans-security-chief-us-tone-has-completely-changed-no-decision-yet-on-nuclear-doctrine (Press TV, 31 October 2026)
• https://www.tricityrecordnm.com/articles/associated-press-new-mexico/mideast-leaders-call-for-calm-as-fears-mount-of-a-renewed-war-in-the-region-and-other-mideast-new/ (Associated Press, 31 October 2026)
• https://khabarwire.com/blog/iran-nuclear-doctrine-npt-withdrawal-debate-2026-11-01/ (KhabarWire, 1 November 2026)
• https://srnnews.com/trump-on-iran-war-its-going-to-get-wrapped-up-soon/ (Reuters via SRN News, 30 October 2026)
• https://www.jfeed.com/news-world/tnrmsq (JFeed, 31 October 2026)
• https://unbiasedheadlines.com/article/trump-says-iran-war-will-end-very-soon-as-tanker-hits-mine-in-hormuz-four-days (Unbiased Headlines, 31 October 2026)