Still bound by the NPT, Iran now calls it a tool of aggression. Accusing the U.S. and Israel of weaponizing the treaty, Tehran hints at abandoning it—raising fears of a North Korea-style nuclear path.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), once hailed as a global shield against nuclear catastrophe, is now in tatters, not because of defiance by rogue states, but due to its own failure to protect countries that are signatories.
As Iran witnessed unprecedented military strikes by the United States and Israel while still being a signatory to the NPT, a serious question is being raised across the Global South: What’s the point of remaining in a treaty that can’t protect you from war?
Tehran’s looming withdrawal threatens to blow a hole through the already fragile non-proliferation regime. If Iran—attacked while adhering to NPT rules—chooses to walk away and pursue a North Korea-style nuclear deterrent, might other countries follow? The message to threatened nations is now clear: treaties don’t stop bombs from falling. Nuclear weapons might.
The U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear sites marks one of the most dangerous escalations in West Asia in decades. In response, Iran is now threatening to withdraw from the NPT after the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes on its nuclear facilities.
What makes this moment explosive is that Iran is still a signatory to the NPT—a treaty meant to prevent such attacks by ensuring transparency and peaceful nuclear development. But Iran’s leadership now argues that the very instrument designed to prevent war and safeguard sovereignty is being weaponized to justify aggression.
The NPT Has Been Exploited as a Political Weapon
Addressing the United Nations Security Council this week, Iran’s Permanent Representative Amir Saeid Iravani accused the U.S. and Israel of misusing the NPT to suppress Iran’s sovereign rights and justify military aggression.
“The NPT, a cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, has been manipulated into a political weapon,” Iravani said. “Instead of guaranteeing parties’ legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear energy, it has been exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action that jeopardizes the supreme interests of my country.”
He warned that if Iran—an NPT signatory and non-nuclear weapon state—can be targeted so brazenly, no other member of the treaty can consider itself immune from similar aggression. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear programme is peaceful and that it does not seek to develop weapons of mass destruction, a position grounded in a religious edict issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Events responsible for reshaping that calculus
The diplomatic storm follows an aggressive week of military action. Former President Donald Trump ordered precision strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, following a series of Israeli raids that targeted Iranian military personnel and nuclear researchers. Iran’s retaliation came swiftly, with drone and missile attacks on Israeli territory. But the regional balance of power appears to be shifting—and Iran is now actively questioning the value of its NPT commitments.
Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, confirmed that lawmakers are drafting a bill to withdraw from the treaty, citing the recent attacks as proof that the international system has failed to protect Iran’s rights.
While Tehran has consistently denied any intention of building nuclear weapons, Western and Israeli officials argue that Iran’s enrichment activities have exceeded thresholds required for civilian use.
The concern now is whether Iran might consider nuclear weaponization—either through its own capabilities or with support from allies such as North Korea or Russia.
Notably, Iran is drawing parallels to past U.S. actions. North Korea—the only country to withdraw from the NPT (in 2003)—cited fears of a U.S. pre-emptive strike as its reason. Just months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq on unproven claims of weapons of mass destruction—an action that still casts doubt on American foreign policy. Iran’s leadership has invoked both precedents to justify reconsidering its participation in the treaty.
Implications: What If Iran Goes Nuclear or Acquires a Bomb?
If Iran leaves the NPT and develops—or receives—a nuclear weapon, the consequences could be far-reaching:
Middle East Nuclear Arms Race
Regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey—all current NPT members—may feel compelled to follow suit. For decades, these nations have been reassured by international norms and Western alliances. A nuclear Iran could unravel that trust overnight.
Collapse of NPT Credibility
The NPT’s central promise is that non-nuclear states will be protected and supported in exchange for forgoing nuclear weapons. If Iran is attacked while complying, and punished further if it exits, the treaty risks becoming a symbol of inequality rather than non-proliferation.
Erosion of IAEA Authority
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has monitored Iran’s nuclear programme for years, may lose access entirely if Tehran walks away. Already under pressure for what Iran calls politically motivated censure, the IAEA’s credibility is being questioned in both Tehran and beyond.
International Strategic Realignment
The U.S. and its allies may increase their military footprint in the Gulf to reassure regional partners. Meanwhile, Russia and China—both permanent Security Council members and NPT nuclear powers—face their own dilemma: how to support Iran diplomatically without undermining the very treaty they helped build.
Iranian Parliament Debates Ending Ties with the IAEA
On June 23, the Iranian parliament began discussions on a bill to suspend Tehran’s cooperation with the IAEA, according to Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis).
“We in the Islamic Consultative Assembly are seeking to approve a bill that would suspend Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA until we have objective guarantees of the agency’s professional behaviour. In accordance with the religious decree of the Supreme Leader, Iran has no plans for non-peaceful activities. However, the world has clearly seen that the Atomic Energy Agency has not fulfilled its obligations and has become a political tool,” said Speaker Qalibaf.
Iran’s Argument: A Treaty Turned Against It
In his speech at the UN, Iravani accused the U.S.—“the only state that has ever used nuclear weapons”—and Israel—“an outlaw nuclear-armed regime”—of destroying the credibility of the NPT. He reminded the Council of UN Security Council Resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards—something that has never happened.
“There is no assurance that other NPT members will not face similar aggression,” Iravani warned, emphasizing that the precedents being set today could unravel decades of nuclear restraint.
Iran’s potential withdrawal from the NPT is not just a regional issue. It has global implications and serves as a test of the effectiveness and resilience of one of the most important treaties of the post-war era.
The NPT:
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1970, is a global agreement aimed at:
Non-Proliferation: Non-nuclear states agree not to pursue nuclear weapons.
Disarmament: Nuclear-armed states commit to gradually disarm.
Peaceful Use: All countries can access nuclear technology for civilian purposes under international safeguards.
With 191 member countries, it is one of the world’s most widely accepted treaties. However, critics argue it is fundamentally unfair—allowing some nations to retain nuclear arsenals while restricting others—and has failed to prevent nuclear buildups or protect compliant nations like Iran.
