Tehran- In light of the talk about the Iranian and American sides reaching an initial agreement that paves the way for discussing the nuclear program and the intensification of Washington’s pressure on Tehran to abandon it, a question is surfacing inside Iran that can no longer be postponed: Are we going to the negotiations with our own nuclear doctrine, or is it time to change it?
After the 12-day (June 2025) and Ramadan (end of February 2026) wars, a segment of Iranian observers believe that high uranium enrichment did not constitute a deterrent to protect the country from attacks or assassinations, which led to the division of political circles:
- Among those who consider the program “national sovereignty.”
- Those who see it as a “losing bet” cost the country decades of isolation and sanctions, raising questions on the street: If enrichment does not deter, then why do we pay its high price? If we are serious about deterrence, why don’t we build the nuclear bomb?
These and other questions are no longer confined to the rooms of political elites and strategic analysis programs in the Persian press. Rather, they have infiltrated the Iranian street, turning the issue that had long been described as a “non-negotiable right” into a rich topic in their daily conversations.
‘In the middle for decades’
On a tour of the capital, Tehran, Al Jazeera Net surveyed the opinions of a number of Iranian citizens about their country’s nuclear program. The answers were striking and even consistent with the concerns of different segments of society.
Hussein (49 years old), a building contractor in the “Sablan” neighborhood, east of the capital, says, “If you have a project that costs you a lot of money and does not give you results, either you complete it in the hope that you will reap its fruits, or you close it and relax.”
In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, Hussein continued sharply, “We have been in the middle of the road for decades. We have been fertilizing and not making a bomb, and we are subjected to all these sanctions as if we have a nuclear arsenal. All these pressures come under the pretext of the nuclear file. So let them build the bomb, or announce that we do not want it and give us comfort. This hesitation is killing us.”
On Jamhouri Street in central Tehran, we met Nakar (45 years old), the owner of an electronics store, and she said with emotion, “The American sanctions deprived us of everything until our youth was lost due to bets that did not bear fruit. We saw nothing from the nuclear program except pressure and wars, while the people groaned under the weight of the high cost of living, cut off electricity, and energy shortages.”
Targeting and isolation
A few kilometers away, we met Dr. Sara (32 years old), who saw the matter from a different angle. She did not hesitate to reject the manufacture of the nuclear bomb “for moral reasons, even though I myself was exposed to pressure as a result of the dual Western policy… Tehran is engaged these days in negotiations regarding its nuclear program under pressure from America and Israel, which possess the nuclear bomb, and through the mediation of nuclear Pakistan.”
Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, she demanded that Tehran abandon its nuclear program because “a nuclear weapon will turn the country into a permanent target and will double its isolation,” adding, “The current sanctions will not end if we make the bomb, but rather will turn into a stifling siege.”
As for the teacher Mohsen (56 years old), he seemed proud of Tehran’s development of the nuclear program, but he quickly expressed his concern about the recurrence of military attacks on his country. He said, “Aggression countries threaten us with a nuclear bomb from time to time, and we have nothing to deter them. If the bomb deters enemies, why don’t we have it? At the very least, it guarantees that no one will dare attack us again.”
Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, he explained, “I am not saying that we should give up our rights, nor am I calling for the manufacture of the nuclear bomb, but if we do not intend to manufacture it, then why do we escalate enrichment to high levels and pay a high price for nothing in return? .. Either we make the bomb and live in pride, or we go back and open our economy. This is an intolerable situation.”
A deterrent necessity
This division in the conversations of ordinary public opinion may not differ much in essence from the debate raging behind the scenes of the political and security elite in Tehran, even if it takes on a more strategic and specialized character there. Between those who see the bomb as a guarantee of existence, and those who are sensitive to its legal sanctity and existential cost, a map of the elite position on the fateful nuclear question is being formed.
For his part, Mustafa Najafi, a researcher specializing in regional conflicts, believes that the option of nuclear armament is no longer an intellectual luxury, but rather a path that external forces are pushing Tehran towards, warning that the other party’s violation of its obligations in any new agreement may create irreversible motives within Iran to review its nuclear doctrine.
In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, Najafi said: “Before any new nuclear agreement, Iran must answer a fundamental question: Are we continuing with the previous nuclear doctrine or are we moving towards a new doctrine? If we insist on the current doctrine, it is logical that we use enriched uranium and our nuclear capabilities as a pressure card in the negotiations. However, if a will is formed to change the doctrine, bargaining over the most important components of nuclear power will be contrary to the logic of this change.”
He continues: “If Washington insists on its previous approach and refuses to provide tangible gains in exchange for Iranian nuclear concessions, a portion of the political and security elites in Tehran will come to the conviction that the current tools of deterrence are insufficient, and then the tendency toward new models of deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, will strengthen.”
In his opinion, the number of Iranians speaking about the necessity of reconsidering the nuclear doctrine has increased significantly following the recent war, “until this position has become part of the state’s strategic calculations.”
He concludes with a decisive conclusion: “In my opinion, there is no path for Iran other than nuclear armament in the face of Israel’s hegemonic approach in the region, and the hostile and war strategy of the United States. We believe that this is a path that America and Israel will push Iran towards in the end.”
Alternate papers
On the other side, the former leader of the Revolutionary Guards, Secretary-General of the Sabz (Greens) Party, Hussein Kanaani Moghadam, stands at the barrier of legitimate rule, stressing that “the main challenge regarding the issue of making nuclear weapons is its legal prohibition. In Islamic jurisprudence, killing innocent people is a grave sin, and the Islamic Republic was never about to seek mass killing, and it still holds this position.”
Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, he added that his country seeks deterrence, but there are other options to achieve it that may be better than nuclear weapons, such as the Strait of Hormuz card, which he believes is more effective than a nuclear bomb, or other tactical weapons that are more deadly and advanced than what it has used so far.
He continues: “No one accepts the risk of creating a nuclear weapon and then not being able to use it. I believe that our possession of 60% enriched uranium is in itself a deterrent. If we had not possessed it, perhaps America would not have accepted a ceasefire, and perhaps it would have moved toward more dangerous weapons.”
Kanaani rejects the hypothesis that the nuclear program was what prompted the attacks on Iran, and says: “This is not true. America had decided to attack in advance, and the nuclear file is just a pretext. Did Venezuela possess enriched uranium? Did Afghanistan or Iraq possess it before their invasion? If the pretext had not been nuclear, they would have found other pretexts.”
Regarding the negotiations, Kanaani adds: “Iran deals with extreme sensitivity in the negotiations, and scrutinizes every word of the potential agreement, because the highly enriched uranium file is one of our winning cards, and because there is no trust in the other party…but if the latter breaks the agreement, we have our deterrent cards, from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Bab al-Mandab and beyond, and these cards will force the opponent to respect his pledges.”
In the midst of ongoing indirect negotiations through regional mediations, observers in Tehran believe that Iran is standing at a historical turning point:
- Either it completely changes its nuclear doctrine and goes for the option of absolute deterrence.
- Or to redefine its program according to a “rational equation” that combines the peaceful nuclear right with breaking the isolation of sanctions, because continuing in the gray zone may be rejected – soon – even by those who have applauded it for a long time.
