The Iranian foreign ministry on Monday confirmed that parliament is preparing legislation to withdraw the country from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — a move with serious global implications as tensions persist following Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran.
Here’s what you need to know about the NPT, why Iran’s potential exit matters, and how the international community may respond.
What is the NPT?
The NPT, which came into force in 1970, is one of the cornerstone agreements of the global arms control architecture. It is built on three pillars: non-proliferation – preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states, disarmament – promoting steps toward the eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals and peaceful use of nuclear energy – allowing civilian nuclear technology under strict oversight.
Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. As a non-nuclear-weapon state, it is legally prohibited from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. In return, Iran is entitled to access peaceful nuclear technology, subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.
What does leaving the NPT mean?
Withdrawing from the NPT would mean Iran no longer accepts the treaty’s obligations, including IAEA inspections and transparency measures.
Technically, it would be free to pursue a nuclear weapons programme, though such a step would violate UN Security Council resolutions and provoke intense international backlash.
Iran’s nuclear facilities would no longer be subject to the IAEA’s safeguards agreements. This could lead to increased secrecy and reduce international visibility over Iran’s nuclear activities, sparking fears that it might move toward weaponisation.
Iran’s current stance
When asked at a press conference about Tehran potentially leaving the NPT, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, said: "In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision. The government has to enforce parliament bills, but such a proposal is just being prepared, and we will coordinate in the later stages with parliament."
Israel began bombing Iran last week, saying Tehran was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb. Iran has always said its nuclear programme is peaceful, although the IAEA declared last week that Tehran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in nearly two decades.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated on Monday that nuclear weapons were against a religious edict by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Baghaei said that developments such as Israel's attack "naturally affect the strategic decisions of the state," noting that Israel's attack had followed the IAEA resolution, which he suggested was to blame.
"Those voting for the resolution prepared the ground for the attack," Baghaei said.
Iran’s history with the NPT: a tool of leverage
This is not the first time Iranian officials have raised the possibility of leaving the NPT. Threats to do so have often followed diplomatic breakdowns. Although it remains a party to the treaty, Iranian leaders have periodically threatened to withdraw, especially when relations with the West deteriorate.
A key moment came after the United States, under President Donald Trump’s first term, withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018.
Hardliners in Iran’s parliament and military leadership warned that a full collapse of the deal might prompt Iran to reconsider its NPT obligations. Khamenei stressed that Iran’s nuclear programme was peaceful but warned that if Iran faced “threats or bullying,” it could take “unprecedented steps,” which many analysts had interpreted as a veiled threat to withdraw from the NPT.
Between 2019 and 2020, Iran began scaling back some JCPOA limits, including increasing uranium enrichment levels and stockpiles, while still technically remaining within the NPT framework.
Meanwhile, Iran’s parliament debated bills urging withdrawal from the NPT as a bargaining tool amid escalating sanctions and regional tensions.
For instance, in early 2020, following heightened US pressure and the assassination of key nuclear scientists, some lawmakers pushed for legislation to withdraw from the treaty and resume unrestricted nuclear activities, although no such law was enacted at the time.
These threats have largely served as political leverage to pressure Western powers, demonstrate internal resolve, and rally nationalist support. However, full withdrawal entails serious risks, including diplomatic isolation and further escalation of the ongoing military conflict.
Regional and global implications
Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT would significantly increase tensions in the Middle East, potentially sparking a nuclear arms race.
Israel, widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons, has already attacked Iran on the pretext of curbing its nuclear ambitions. It may respond by adopting more aggressive deterrent measures to counter the perceived threat.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has openly hinted in the past that it could pursue its own nuclear capabilities if Iran moves forward with weaponisation.
On the international stage, the US is expected to respond with intensified sanctions and possibly increased military containment efforts. The European Union may try last-ditch diplomatic efforts, but is likely to shift toward applying stronger pressure if Iran fully abandons its NPT commitments.
Russia and China, while generally advocating for restraint, will seek to protect their strategic interests in the region and may balance criticism with calls for dialogue.
How can a country leave the NPT?
The NPT includes a formal withdrawal clause under Article X. A state must give three months' notice to all other treaty parties and the United Nations Security Council, citing "extraordinary events" that jeopardise its supreme national interests.
Iran would likely frame its decision within this language, citing Israel’s latest unprovoked attacks, sanctions, “Western hypocrisy,” or regional threats as justification.
Only one country has withdrawn from the NPT: North Korea, in 2003. Since then, it has conducted multiple nuclear tests and is now considered a de facto nuclear weapons state.
The North Korean case is often cited as a cautionary tale, where withdrawal led to deeper isolation, triggered a permanent nuclear standoff, but perhaps also established a form of deterrence for that country.
A turning point for non-proliferation?
Iran’s potential withdrawal from the NPT would mark a serious breach of international norms and could shatter what remains of the JCPOA-era diplomatic framework. For regional actors, it would signal a dramatically more volatile security environment.
As the bill proceeds through Iran’s parliament, much will depend on whether this is a negotiating tactic or a genuine policy shift. Either way, the world is watching closely.
