Iran's nuclear doctrine is at a critical point in the country's security dispute. A topic that has been increasingly examined in recent years within the framework of international commitments and nuclear negotiations is now linked to national security and deterrence. Military attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and ongoing threats from the United States and the Zionist regime have turned the discussion about changing the nuclear doctrine into one of the serious focal points of the country's political dialogues.
Sina Azadi's Analysis of the Nuclear Doctrine
Sina Azadi, the Middle East program director at Georgetown University, has examined calls for an increased review of Iran's nuclear doctrine in an article. He believes that military attacks have damaged enrichment infrastructure but have not been able to eliminate Iran's scientific capability and political motivation. In his view, the strategy of maintaining nuclear capacity without moving towards weapon development cannot prevent military action against Iran.
Read more: Hanwha Company Secures $269 Million Contract for Military Ship Construction
This analysis presents three pathways for Iran's nuclear policy: abandoning the nuclear program, moving towards weapon development, and rebuilding threshold capacity. The third option, which maintains technical capability without crossing the line into weapon development, seems more likely according to Azadi and could aid in diplomatic bargaining. Conversely, moving towards militarizing the nuclear program may be accompanied by new attacks and an arms race in the region.
Political Positions on the Nuclear Doctrine
The discussion of changing the nuclear doctrine has gone beyond academic analyses and has been reflected in the statements of some political and religious figures. Javad Larijani has pointed to Iran's scientific capabilities in the nuclear field, while Mahmoud Nabavian, a representative from Tehran in the parliament, has spoken about proposing a permit for building an atomic bomb. Ayatollah Alamolhoda has also addressed the issue of deterrence from a jurisprudential perspective.
Disagreement regarding the future of the nuclear doctrine should not be limited to approval or disapproval of weapon development. Rather, choosing a path that can create a balance between maintaining strategic capability, reducing the risk of conflict, and ensuring the long-term security of the country is of greater importance. Abolfazl Bazargan has also emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between technical capability and political will, believing that withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) alone cannot ensure security.
Currently, disagreement over the nuclear doctrine is presented as a vital issue in Iran's domestic and foreign policy, and it seems that new opinions regarding this matter are forming. Alireza Taghvinia, a political affairs expert, has pointed to the increase in comments about the necessity of revising the nuclear doctrine and emphasized the need to pay attention to the nature of security threats.
This expert, referring to the positions of the President and other political figures, believes that regional conditions and impending threats have affected previous calculations. Israel, as a serious threat factor, may resort to unpredictable behaviors. Therefore, Iran must answer the question of how it can prevent the enemy from thinking it can attack the country without incurring heavy costs.
Read more: Shipping industry stakeholders discussed challenges and opportunities at the Monaco conference · Sanctioning an Iranian oil shipment en route to China
