Iran International
The IRGC-linked Tasnim news agency has set out the case for Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), adding to a renewed debate over Tehran's nuclear strategy as the region remains caught between diplomacy and war.
In a commentary published Wednesday, Tasnim argued that the treaty had failed to protect Iran's interests and questioned the benefits of remaining a member after successive wars with Israel and the United States.
The intervention comes as Qatar promotes a diplomatic framework reportedly linking the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief and efforts to reduce tensions involving Yemen's Houthis.
It also follows signals from Tehran that its leadership wants to end the current diplomatic and military stalemate.
Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Mohsen Rezaei said Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had told him during a meeting on Tuesday that it was time to end the state of “no war, no peace.”
President Masoud Pezeshkian said Wednesday that his government would do everything it could to fulfil the leader's wishes.
Tasnim's commentary, titled “Why Should Iran Leave the NPT?”, highlights divisions over how Tehran should respond to international pressure on its nuclear program.
The case for withdrawal
Hardline politicians have repeatedly raised the prospect of leaving the NPT during periods of nuclear negotiations, arguing that the treaty has failed to protect Iran's interests.
Tasnim identified three central objectives of the treaty: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, encouraging nuclear-armed states to disarm and protecting members' right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
The agency argued that the treaty had failed on all three counts.
It accused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of abandoning its role as an impartial technical body and becoming politically aligned with the United States and Israel.
The agency had failed to defend Iran's rights when its nuclear sites were attacked, so withdrawal would be a legitimate option for Tehran, Tasnim argued.
Tasnim maintained that withdrawal would not necessarily mean developing nuclear weapons. Some lawmakers, however, have explicitly linked the two.
On Tuesday, MP Abolfazl Aboutorabi called for Iran to withdraw from the NPT and begin building a nuclear bomb.
Other hardline figures, including members of the ultraconservative Paydari Front, have advocated withdrawal, arguing that continued membership has failed to prevent attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities despite their being subject to international safeguards.
Divisions within the establishment
The calls have met resistance from other establishment-aligned media, reflecting disagreements over the potential costs of withdrawal.
Khabar Online, a pragmatic-conservative outlet, sharply criticized the campaign in an October 25 report, singling out the Paydari Front and questioning the political judgment of those advocating departure from the treaty.
Its headline described the proposal as a radical demand dating back two decades, with “neither head nor tail.”
The reformist Arman Melli newspaper has also taken a position against withdrawal, broadly reflecting the Pezeshkian administration's preference for maintaining Iran's existing treaty commitments.
Nour News, which is close to the SNSC, adopted a more cautious approach in its own October 25 analysis.
It argued that neither withdrawal nor continued membership could guarantee Iran's security and that dissatisfaction with the IAEA did not, by itself, justify abandoning the treaty.
The outlet also warned that withdrawal from the NPT would create further political and diplomatic complications, while remaining in the treaty would still allow Tehran to restrict aspects of its cooperation with the IAEA.
Withdrawal, it concluded, should not be considered without a clear plan for what would follow.
A consequential decision
Leaving the NPT would have implications beyond Iran's relations with the IAEA.
Under Article X of the treaty, a state party may exercise its right to withdraw if it determines that extraordinary events have jeopardized its supreme interests. It must give three months' notice to other treaty parties and the UN Security Council, explaining the events behind its decision.
Withdrawal could further complicate Tehran's relations with Western governments and raise questions about the future of international monitoring of its nuclear activities.
Despite the calls from hardline lawmakers and media outlets, Iran has announced no decision to leave the treaty.
The government continues to maintain that its nuclear program is peaceful, and neither the SNSC nor Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has publicly endorsed withdrawal.
The competing arguments underscore a debate within Iran's political establishment: whether abandoning the treaty would strengthen Tehran's position after repeated military attacks or leave it more isolated and vulnerable as regional powers seek a diplomatic settlement.
The Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Fars news agency has promoted calls for Iran to build an atomic bomb through a video of street interviews, presenting nuclear armament as a popular demand.
“The most frequently repeated demand among Iranians these days: Why should America and Israel have atomic bombs while we don't?” Fars said in its description of the video, circulated on X and Telegram.
The agency presented the selected interviews as evidence of public support for nuclear weapons, although they provide no reliable measure of how widely that view is shared.
The message echoes arguments advanced by several Iranian lawmakers and other establishment figures following the wars with Israel and the United States.
From warnings to calls for a bomb
Discussion of changing Iran's nuclear doctrine predates the wars. In May 2024, former foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi, who later advised Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said Iran could reconsider its nuclear doctrine if Israel attacked its nuclear facilities or threatened the country's existence.
Kharrazi died in April 2026 from injuries sustained in a US-Israeli strike on his home in Tehran.
In August, Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei argued that international non-proliferation commitments had failed to protect Iran from military attack.
“When America is waging such a war, people naturally ask: Why shouldn’t we pursue nuclear weapons ourselves?” Rezaei told state television, suggesting that the attacks had strengthened arguments for acquiring an atomic deterrent.
Some lawmakers have gone further. On October 18, Ahmad Naderi, a member of parliament's presiding committee, said he had advocated nuclear testing and developing an atomic bomb for more than a decade.
Naderi also suggested that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei might take a different position from his late father, Ali Khamenei, who maintained that his religious ruling prohibited nuclear weapons.
Lawmaker Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani called in July for Iran to manufacture nuclear weapons, arguing that the country had already paid the price for its nuclear program.
The conservative newspaper Vatan-e Emrooz also endorsed nuclear armament this month, featuring the headline “Iran Should Build a Bomb” and arguing that a nuclear deterrent could prevent further US and Israeli attacks.
Attempts to portray nuclear weapons as a popular demand predate the latest Fars video.
In September 2025, state television aired a commentator's claim that nearly 90% of Iranians favored building a bomb following the 12-day war, without providing verifiable polling methodology.
Former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has argued that nuclear weapons cannot guarantee a country's security or survival, drawing criticism from hardliners who see them as necessary to deter future attacks.
Iranian lawmakers are reviewing a new internet regulation bill that could expand authorities' powers to restrict online access, raising concerns over further controls after months of nationwide internet shutdowns.
The proposed Cyberspace Regulation Bill is being examined by a parliamentary committee, but its official text remains unpublished, Iranian news outlet Jamaran reported.
Parliament received the proposal on August 3, but lawmakers reviewing it have declined to disclose its provisions.
"A decision has been made not to publicize the details of the Cyberspace Regulation Bill for the time being," Rouhollah Abbaspour, spokesman for the parliamentary committee, said.
An unofficial 12-article draft circulating online resembles the controversial Internet Protection Bill, known as the Sianat plan, which stalled in the previous parliament. However, a committee member told local media that the version under review differs from the circulating text.
Lawmakers divided over restrictions
The proposal has drawn criticism within parliament, with some lawmakers questioning the need for additional controls when international internet access is already heavily restricted.
Mostafa Pourdehghan, a member of parliament's Industries and Mines Committee, criticized repeated attempts to restrict international connectivity and expand domestic alternatives, citing existing filtering, poor internet quality and rising costs.
Pourdehghan warned that further restrictions during wartime could increase public anxiety, particularly among young people, and predicted the bill would meet the same fate as the earlier so-called Protection Plan.
Lawyer warns of sweeping powers
Lawyer Kambiz Norouzi warned that the proposed legislation could give the Supreme Council of Cyberspace extensive authority while weakening government oversight.
In an editorial published by Shargh newspaper, Norouzi criticized Article 1 of the circulating draft, which designates the council as the highest authority for internet policymaking.
Article 6 would also allow internet access to be suspended or restricted on orders from judicial authorities or other competent bodies, without clearly identifying those additional authorities.
"This provision amounts to creating unlimited and unregulated power to violate fundamental freedoms and is certainly unconstitutional and illegitimate," Norouzi wrote.
Norouzi also argued that the bill would concentrate decision-making in an institution whose proceedings are largely closed to public scrutiny.
The official parliamentary text has not been published, leaving uncertainty over whether these provisions appear in the version under review.
Months of shutdowns and previous restrictions
The proposal follows months of internet disruption affecting millions of Iranians.
Authorities imposed a nationwide blackout on January 8, 2026, during anti-government protests. Connectivity was only partially restored before another near-total shutdown began on February 28 following the outbreak of war involving Iran, Israel and the United States.
The second blackout lasted 88 days, with international connectivity beginning to return on May 26.
Restrictions disrupted businesses, education and communications. Iran's Chamber of Commerce estimated direct economic losses at $30 million to $40 million daily, with indirect losses potentially doubling that figure.
The legislation follows years of attempts to expand state control over online communications.
The earlier so-called Protection Plan sought greater oversight of foreign platforms but stalled following public opposition.
In July 2025, President Masoud Pezeshkian's administration also withdrew a separate cyber censorship bill following criticism over its potential impact on free expression.
Authorities have continued developing the National Information Network, which allows selected domestic services to operate independently of international connectivity.
The Supreme Council of Cyberspace, established by former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2012, already plays a central role in internet policymaking.
For now, lawmakers remain divided over the proposal's prospects, while the refusal to release its official text has left its scope, legal implications and potential impact on internet access unclear.
Iran's acting oil minister Hamid Bovard is facing questions over his role in recovering billions of dollars in oil revenues and allegations of his brother's involvement in senior appointments, news outlet Rouydad24 reported on Wednesday.
The report follows the resignation of Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad on October 4 and Bovard's appointment as caretaker minister, despite his previous responsibility for overseeing oil operations as managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).
The controversy has intensified following a debate hosted by the Revolutionary Guard-affiliated Fars news agency over billions of dollars in outstanding oil revenues, the performance of Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company and the circumstances surrounding Paknejad's departure.
The debate raised questions about Bovard's appointment as acting oil minister, given his previous responsibility for overseeing oil sales as head of the National Iranian Oil Company, and whether he should also be held accountable for the failure to recover export revenues.
The criticism centres on the failure of intermediaries, commonly known in Iran as trustees, to transfer proceeds from oil exports back to the country.
Reports have put the outstanding revenues at several billion dollars, including an estimated $4.7 billion associated with sales during Paknejad's tenure.
Questions over family influence
Rouydad24 also raised questions about the possible involvement of Bovard's brother, Javad Bovard, in recent management appointments across the oil sector.
The outlet cited unverified reports and rumours suggesting that Javad Bovard may have influenced personnel decisions.
The National Iranian Oil Company has previously denied allegations that family connections were being used to secure business advantages, saying certain contracts dated back to the previous administration.
Among the appointments highlighted was Mohammad Salehi Dolabi's selection as managing director of Oil Exploration Operations Company (OEOC), an upstream oil services company.
Rouydad24 questioned the limited publicly available information about his technical qualifications and previous experience in exploration and drilling, saying the lack of transparency had contributed to concerns over the selection process.
Uncertainty over permanent minister
Bovard's appointment as caretaker minister does not guarantee that he will become the permanent head of the ministry.
Under Article 135 of Iran's constitution, President Masoud Pezeshkian has three months to nominate a replacement minister for parliamentary approval.
Rouydad24 identified several potential candidates, including former economy minister Masoud Karbasian, former minister Mohammad Shariatmadari and former Social Security Organization chief Mostafa Salari.
The report suggested Bovard could face competition from candidates with greater ministerial or managerial experience.
The unresolved oil revenues and questions surrounding senior appointments have placed the ministry's leadership under renewed scrutiny, with the government yet to announce its nominee for the permanent post.
A senior Iranian official said on Wednesday that Qatar had presented Tehran with ideas that were unacceptable rather than a new peace proposal, casting doubt on diplomatic efforts to end the US-Israeli war on Iran as Washington weighs further military action.
The unnamed official told Reuters that Tehran would show no flexibility on the nuclear issue, a key point of dispute in efforts to reach an agreement.
The remarks came hours after Reuters cited another unnamed official briefed on the negotiations as saying that Qatari mediators had presented Iran with a new draft agreement in Tehran on Sunday, with a response expected by the end of the week.
Qatar pushes seven-day agreement
According to the official briefed on the negotiations, the draft sets out a seven-day timeline to address concerns on both sides, requiring each side to take daily confidence-building steps.
The process could begin early next week, while several countries would act as guarantors of the agreement. The official also said there had been concerns ahead of Sunday's meeting in Tehran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could resume attacks on Iran this week.
Trump leaves military options open
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday declined to rule out further strikes on Iran after the November 3 US midterm elections, saying "anything is possible."
"I can't tell you that," Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland when asked whether he planned to attack Iran after the elections. "But anything is possible."
Trump said Iran wanted an agreement and might be waiting until after the elections, but warned that delaying a deal "is not going to help."
"We've decimated their military. We've decimated the finances. They have no money. They have inflation the highest in the world, 300 percent. The government is gone. But we'll see what happens," Trump said.
His remarks came as the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington had warned several Arab states in the Persian Gulf to prepare for a possible short, intense military campaign against Iran after the elections.
US and Israel prepare for possible strikes
The United States has sent warnings through diplomatic and military channels as Washington and Israel prepare for a possible new round of attacks aimed at weakening Tehran and pushing it toward negotiations, the Journal reported, citing people briefed on the discussions.
The US military is moving a Patriot missile defense system from Texas to strengthen regional defenses and has relocated troops from vulnerable bases in preparation for a possible escalation, according to the report.
US forces have also been replenishing munitions, while bombers and fighter jets are being prepared for potential operations.
An additional aircraft carrier strike group and a Marine expeditionary unit are expected to join roughly 20 US warships in the Middle East next month, although some vessels could rotate out, the Journal reported.
Trump has not made a final decision but is leaning toward a large-scale attack after the elections that could target Iranian infrastructure and nuclear facilities, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with his thinking.
Israel has also prepared plans and identified targets for possible strikes, while Netanyahu has pushed for renewed military action against Iran, according to the report.
The White House declined to comment on "sensitive military plans that may or may not exist," but said Trump "keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon."
Iran’s budget planners are considering oil at $130 per barrel for the next Iranian year even as the conflict driving global prices higher has severely restricted Tehran’s ability to export crude.
The scenario, reported by the IRGC-linked Fars News Agency, would put the assumed price at more than twice the $55 used in the previous budget and highlights an increasingly difficult calculation for Tehran.
Plan and Budget Organization chief Hamid Pourmohammadi said Sunday that Iran’s Economic Council had approved the directive for drafting the budget for the year 1406, which begins in March 2027, and that the bill would be submitted to parliament within a month.
He did not disclose the baseline oil price the government intends to use. Fars reported separately that the PBO was considering a scenario based on oil reaching $130 per barrel.
An agreement with Washington could ease restrictions on Iranian exports but push global oil prices lower. Continued conflict could keep prices elevated while making Iranian oil even harder to sell.
A $130 scenario
Global oil prices have risen sharply since the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel and the regional conflicts that followed, climbing from around $70 to roughly $117 per barrel.
Some Iranian oil-market commentators say prices could reach $130 if the conflict continues and Tehran and Washington fail to reach an agreement.
But Iranian budgets have traditionally used more conservative oil-price assumptions to reduce the risk of revenues falling short.
Tehran’s Haft-e Sobh newspaper described the $130 figure as a “shock,” while the economic news website Faraz Energy also reported that it was under consideration.
Iran’s ability to sell crude has been severely constrained by the US naval blockade and sanctions. The higher global price therefore does not necessarily translate into higher revenues for Tehran.
Disputed export figures
Iranian officials insist that oil continues to leave the country despite US efforts to stop exports.
Mohsen Zanganeh, a member of parliament’s Planning and Budget Committee, said Iran earned more than $11.5 billion from oil during the first four months of the year and achieved 85% of its projected oil revenue.
He also claimed that Iran continued to export at least 600,000 barrels of crude per day despite the blockade and sanctions.
The US military’s Central Command presents a sharply different picture, saying its blockade of Iranian ports has prevented at least $25 billion in crude exports and that no goods other than humanitarian supplies have moved by sea.
The competing claims from parties to the conflict have not been independently verified.
Iran’s oil infrastructure has also suffered serious damage during the war, while the government has resorted to rationing and other austerity measures to curb domestic energy consumption.
Risk of a shortfall
Hossein Selahvarzi, a former head of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, warned in comments published by the economic daily Donya-ye Eghtesad that the greatest danger would be to prepare the 1406 budget as though Iran were facing a normal year.
Such an approach, he argued, could combine optimistic revenue forecasts with existing spending commitments, producing a deficit that would fuel inflation and discourage investment.
The uncertainty surrounding both prices and export volumes makes the eventual assumptions particularly important.
If $130 becomes the government’s baseline rather than merely one scenario, and either prices or export volumes fall short, Tehran would have to find other ways to close the revenue gap.
Those could include borrowing from the National Development Fund, selling government bonds or relying indirectly on financing from the Central Bank—measures that could add to inflationary pressure and further weaken the rial.
The government has yet to disclose which oil price or export volume it will ultimately use. But the $130 scenario illustrates the unusual calculation facing Tehran: the conflict that has made oil more valuable has also made Iran’s considerably harder to sell.
