Iran lawmakers call for withdrawal from NPT: Will we have war or peace? 

Several Iranian lawmakers have called for the country’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as United States President Donald Trump says the war on Iran will be “wrapped up” soon.

The lawmakers’ demands come as Qatari mediators returned to Tehran this week to mediate peace talks with the US.

Before the US and Israel’s war on Iran began on February 28, Washington and Tehran had already been engaging in indirect nuclear negotiations mediated by Oman. Iran had also stated on numerous occasions that it had no plans to develop nuclear weapons.

Trump has also repeatedly stated that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon”, making it a non-negotiable condition for ending the ongoing conflict and securing a permanent deal.

Iran, however, has demanded certain conditions be met before it will talk again about its nuclear programme – including an end to the US naval blockade of its ports in and around the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions and a guarantee there will be no more attacks.

The war, which is entering its ninth month, has upended global energy and financial markets with the closure of Hormuz.

On Friday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi hit back at Friedrich Merz after the German chancellor said the war on Iran has added more than 100 billion euros ($112bn) to Europe’s energy costs.

In a post on X, Araghchi noted that Merz had “hailed” the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran in June of last year, when he said: “This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us.”

The Iranian foreign minister then warned that any renewed attacks could come at a far higher cost for Europe.

“100bn Euro is nothing compared to the Earth-shattering blow Iran’s Powerful Armed Forces will deal against those who dare harm our people,” Araghchi wrote. “Red lines are a thing of the past,” he added.

Could Iran withdraw from the NPT, and what would that mean for diplomatic efforts to end the war?

Here’s what we know:

Which Iranian lawmakers are calling for withdrawal from the NPT, and why?

On Saturday, Iranian legislator Mahmoud Nabavian called for Iran to withdraw from the NPT and change its nuclear doctrine, adding to similar demands from other lawmakers and public figures.

“Now that we have paid the heavy costs of war and sanctions, it is time for the Iranian nation to withdraw from the NPT treaty and change the nuclear doctrine,” he wrote on X.

In parliament, Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said 10 proposals to withdraw from the treaty had been registered, and withdrawal was under consideration, according to the Fars news agency.

Mohammad Javad Haj Ali Akbari, an Iranian politician and scholar, also called for a review of Iran’s nuclear doctrine, describing it as a “national demand” during his sermon on Friday, state broadcaster IRIB reported.

He said the demand was not a hasty or emotional reaction, but reflected Iranians’ awareness of what he described as US failures to honour commitments.

Separately, in a report earlier this week, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported calls for Iran to withdraw from the NPT and accused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of becoming politically aligned with the US and Israel.

Last month, an IAEA resolution expressed “grave concerns” about Iran’s “continued noncompliance” with its obligations under the NPT, to which it is a signatory.

But the IAEA has not had access to key nuclear facilities in Iran since the US and Israel launched a 12-day war against the country in June 2025, which included attacks on key Iranian nuclear sites, such as the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities.

Iran has condemned the IAEA resolution, calling it baseless and politically motivated.

What is the NPT?

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a landmark international treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

It was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, and entered into force on March 5, 1970. The treaty was negotiated by the US, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

Under the NPT, nuclear-weapon states agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or assist non-nuclear-weapon states in developing them.

Non-nuclear-weapon states also agree not to seek or acquire nuclear weapons.

The treaty views nuclear-weapon states as those which manufactured and tested a nuclear weapon or other nuclear device before January 1, 1967. Those countries are the US, UK, France, China and Russia. The treaty also paves a path for these original nuclear weapons powers to phase out their arsenals.

A total of 191 countries are now part of the treaty. Non-signatories include India, Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan.

The treaty supports the right of all signatories to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under safeguards overseen by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Among the 11 articles of the treaty, one allows a country to withdraw with three months’ notice “if it decides that extraordinary events … have jeopardised the supreme interests of its country”.

Iran signed the NPT in July 1968 and ratified it in February 1970 as a nonnuclear-weapon state.

It has since stated consistently that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and research only. The IAEA has conducted inspections under the treaty’s safeguards system.

Has there been any response from Iran’s leaders?

But on October 24, according to Iranian media reports, the Paydari Front, a hardline faction aligned with conservative groups, also called on parliament to withdraw from the NPT.

Withdrawal from the NPT would not automatically mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon. Officially, the Iranian government’s position on not seeking nuclear arms remains unchanged.

In June, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that lawmakers are preparing a bill to withdraw Tehran from the NPT.

“In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision,” ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei had said at a news conference. “[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.”

But Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has said Tehran’s policies align with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s longstanding religious edict against weapons of mass destruction. “The Zionist regime is the only possessor of weapons of mass destruction in the region,” Baghaei had said, referring to the Israeli government.

The US President has repeatedly stated that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon” and made this a non-negotiable condition for ending the ongoing conflict and securing a permanent deal.

In a speech at Daytona Beach, Florida late on Friday, he brought up Iran several times and repeated claims about destroying its navy and air force. “We are never going to give them a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Trump also denied that the US had started the war, saying, “This was a war they started many years ago,” and “Iran has been waging war on America since 1979.″

Separately, in an interview with Kansas City radio station KCMO on Friday, he said the war is “going to get wrapped up soon” but said Washington needs “a guarantee there’ll never be a nuclear weapon”.

Mohamed Elmenshawy, a Washington-based analyst, told Al Jazeera that Trump wants to end the standoff with Iran “whether through peace or war as quickly as possible”, and may launch new attacks after the November 3 midterm elections.

“What breaks this state of stalemate, this condition of ‘no peace, no war’, is either achieving some progress in the negotiating track, or the attacks beginning anew,” Elmenshawy told Al Jazeera.

He said Trump believes “time is on his side”, pointing to “strict economic pressure” on Iran, including the US naval blockade that has curtailed Tehran’s ability to export oil as well as sanctions on Iranian aviation and land border closures by several other countries.

Elmenshawy said Tehran “must realise” Trump will not let the conflict “remain suspended like this” and that this pressure should push “the Qatari and Pakistani mediators to drive the efforts more forcefully in order to avoid the path of war”.

Trump faces “pressure from the Israeli side to launch the attacks, and opposite pressure from the Arab Gulf side to push the negotiating track”, he added, saying Trump, “whose next moves cannot be predicted”, could yield to either.

On Saturday, the spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Mohammad Akraminia, sent a warning to US President Donald Trump, writing on X that its armed forces are “closely monitoring America’s movements in the region”.

Akraminia said that if the US president “resorts to another adventure in the region” along with Israel, then Iran will retaliate significantly.

“There is no doubt that the flames of war will engulf a much wider area, and the end of the conflict will not be in his [Trump’s] hands,” Akraminia wrote.

“Given the US President’s track record of betraying diplomacy,” and citing Trump’s “distrustful” nature, Akraminia said the IRGC’s armed forces are “relentlessly enhancing their combat readiness”.

What was the position before the war began?

Before the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28 this year, Tehran and Washington were in active nuclear negotiations.

At talks in Geneva, mediator Oman said both countries had made “significant progress”.

Just one day before the US-Israeli attacks started, Oman’s foreign minister said Iran had agreed to reduce its nuclear stockpiles to “the lowest level possible”. Then the war began.

Almost eight months later, the war has brought this position no further forward.

In fact, more problems, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz upending global energy markets and most recently, the Iran-aligned Houthis and Saudi Arabia locking horns, have threatened the Middle East’s regional stability.

Furthermore, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in September that Iran no longer trusts negotiations with Washington because attacks had come during previous rounds of talks.

Christopher Featherstone, associate lecturer at the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of York in the UK, told Al Jazeera that the war has set the potential for negotiations all the way back to square one, and it will take significant diplomatic effort to initiate any meaningful negotiations, let alone achieve success in those negotiations.

“Intermediaries will be cautious about being seen to be too close to the US if the conflict reignites, and Iran has shown a strong willingness to reject a ‘deal’ that would favour the Trump administration too heavily,” he said.

What diplomatic efforts are happening to de-escalate the war?

On Friday morning, Qatari mediators, in coordination with US officials, returned to Tehran in an apparent bid to revive the June ceasefire that quickly fell apart over control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Days earlier, they delivered a letter from US Vice President JD Vance to Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, proposing renewed peace talks, according to US media.

Iranian sources have confirmed to Al Jazeera that Tehran received a letter from the US on ending the war and suggested the Qatari delegation had come to collect Iran’s response.

The sources said a meeting to discuss a new diplomatic path could be held within a week, either in Doha or Istanbul.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, spokesman for Pakistan’s military, told the Reuters news agency his country is “cautiously optimistic” ⁠about mediation efforts between Iran and the US as regional countries seek to revive a ceasefire in the eight-month-old war.

He suggested on Friday that there were positive signs in attempts to de-escalate the conflict. His comments to Reuters were the first since a high-level delegation visited Tehran this week.

Ali al-Sari, a former member of Iran’s parliament, said there are positive indications from both Tehran and Washington on the diplomatic track, despite a military buildup on both sides.

“The response has not been clear so far, but there are indications on the Iranian side, and also in my view on the American side, that the signs are somewhat positive rather than negative,” al-Sari told Al Jazeera.

He said the US is reinforcing its military buildup, while Iran is strengthening its forces “in the Strait of Hormuz and along the borders”. He added that “the coincidence of this message with the Qatari mediation is significant.

“For this reason, Tehran is studying its response carefully and has not rushed, but it wants something in return, even amid a tense situation between the two parties,” he said.

He pointed to the repeated visits of the Qatari delegation, which “came, then returned, then came again”. In his view, this suggests that the Qatari mediation and other mediation efforts, including Russia’s mediation, mean coordination with the US is continuing and is a “positive sign”. Al-Sari also highlighted the US ambassador to Turkiye Tom Barrack’s recent comments that the US and Iran are “very close” to a deal to de-escalate tensions.

Is peace or renewal of war more likely after the US midterm elections?

Currently, Washington and Tehran have sent mixed signals about whether the eight-month war is heading back to full-scale attacks or towards a peace deal.

On Thursday, the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, briefed US President Donald Trump on options for renewed attacks on Iran, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that Trump was briefed on options for renewed attacks on Thursday. On the same day, US Senator Chris Murphy said he had been briefed on the war plan and described it as “insane”.

Separately, US media reported that Washington has warned Gulf allies to prepare for potential military action after the November 3 midterm elections.

“There has been little signal from either side of a move to a formal peace, but there is the potential for another cautious temporary ceasefire,” Featherstone said.

“After the midterm elections, if Trump loses both Houses, he will be severely limited in his ability to pursue his domestic agenda. This could push him to be more active on the international stage, and the Iran conflict would likely be a focus for his attention,” he added.

“However, he has set out almost no sign of how he would measure victory or success in this war, so a path out of the conflict is incredibly unclear,” he said.

Abas Aslani, a researcher at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, said a deep lack of trust lies behind Iran’s failure to respond to the US proposals it has received.

“Washington wants Iran to make concessions on the nuclear issue in advance, but Iran insists on the seven conditions,” Aslani told Al Jazeera, referring to Tehran’s seven-point plan to end the war.

“In Iran, they fear that if they commit and fulfil their obligations, the United States will not honour its obligations and will backtrack. Instead, the United States would launch another attack.”

He noted that Trump is “trying to use this potential agreement to promote it to the public and to use it for electoral purposes in the United States”, while “Iran wants an agreement that will be vital and bring peace to the region.”

Aslani said “the conditions and the sequencing” also remain in dispute.

Iran is using mediators to send a message “that its position has not changed”, he said, but Washington “also insists on its position”.

“We don’t see any tangible progress – but despite this, efforts are still ongoing,” he added.