Does Tehran want the bomb? Some in DC say war has shifted Iran’s thinking.

Washington | Nov. 02, 2026, 2:24 p.m. ET | 5 min read Shortly after Pakistan’s army chief visited Tehran last month to discuss ways to bring the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran to an end, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council underlined one step that was off the table for making peace with Washington.“Not a single gram of enriched uranium will be removed from Iran,” the security leader, Mohsen Rezaei, insisted.After eight months of war that have decimated Iran’s leadership and impoverished the country, much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure lies in ruins. But Tehran still possesses nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium, material that is just one step away from nuclear-bomb-grade fuel. Mr. Rezaei’s statement suggests that Iran sees its stock of enriched uranium – as well as other surviving components of its nuclear program – as decisive leverage in any negotiations to end the war.But such blunt talk of retaining the building blocks of a nuclear weapon also adds to a growing list of indicators that leads some analysts in Washington to conclude that Iran is more likely now than before the war to seek such a weapon.“There’s no question the war has made it more likely that Iran decides it needs the bomb for its own preservation,” says Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, a Washington-based national security think tank that promotes U.S. foreign policy restraint. “Whether or not they ultimately go down that path remains to be seen, but there’s little doubt they’ve concluded that conventional deterrence did not work with the United States,” she adds. “So, they might see getting the bomb as their only option.”Answer to regime changeOthers say that, more than anything, the experience of a war aimed at regime change has hardened Iran’s position on its nuclear program.“The war almost certainly increases Iran’s desire for the bomb,” says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The U.S. has fought a war of regime change, and although there are many reasons to conclude the war was not a success, they did kill the supreme leader,” he adds. “The Iranians won’t forget that.”Now, with rumblings of renewed airstrikes on Iran spiking amid what could be last-ditch diplomatic efforts, the question arises: Does the prospect of an Iran deciding to go for the ultimate deterrent favor diplomacy – or more war?The answer remains murky, but both alternatives have gained credence in recent days with signals emanating from the White House. Last week, Vice President JD Vance sent a letter to General Rezaei via Qatari diplomats, proposing an immediate resumption of comprehensive peace negotiations. David Smith/AP/FileA U.S. B-2 bomber arrives at its base in Missouri after returning from a strike against Iranian nuclear sites, June 22, 2025. In his communication, Mr. Vance said the talks, which he would lead, would have to include the issue of Iran’s nuclear program from the outset. Until now, Iran has insisted that the nuclear portfolio be taken up only after other war issues are resolved.On the other hand, President Donald Trump has recently fanned speculation that a return to war is imminent – perhaps right after the U.S. midterm elections Tuesday. He has warned Persian Gulf leaders to prepare for renewed conflict and cited Pentagon preparations for resumed airstrikes. In any case, some analysts say, the U.S. should not count on military force alone to resolve the challenge of Iran’s nuclear program.“Donald Trump bought some time by destroying the nuclear facilities, but his threats of more military action tell us he realizes the program is still standing,” says Sina Azodi, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Repeated military strikes might delay Iran’s program, he adds, while ultimately strengthening the argument inside Iranian leadership – and indeed the Iranian public – that only nuclear weapons can provide lasting security.Three optionsDr. Azodi argues in a recent article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that, while Tehran has yet to decide to go nuclear, that does not mean the challenge of Iran’s nuclear program is likely to be resolved anytime soon.Iran has three options to choose from with regard to the future of its nuclear program, he says: dismantlement, weaponization or rebuilding to the weapon-threshold level, where the program stood before the U.S. and Israel launched 12 days of airstrikes in June 2025.While Dr. Azodi says dismantlement is not impossible, he believes it is the least likely option. Tehran has never forgotten the experience of Libya, he notes, where Muammar Qaddafi agreed to give up his country’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and other benefits.“The Iranians see that dismantlement did not save Qaddafi and his regime,” he says. Instead, they took away from Libya that giving up a nuclear program starts a slippery slope to regime change, he says. “They say, ‘If we give up our nuclear program, they’re going to say, “Give up your missiles, and then after the missiles, “Give up your [theocratic system] and your religion,’” he says, “‘until ultimately it’s unconditional surrender.’” Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service/APIn a photo released by the North Korean government, the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, front right, visits a facility that produces nuclear-bomb fuels, at an undisclosed location in North Korea, June 3, 2026. Carnegie’s Dr. Acton says another lesson the Iranians have learned is that of North Korea. “What North Korea tells not just the Iranians but the whole world is that if you want your regime to survive, it’s helpful to have a bomb,” he says. “The Kim family is still in power, something they owe in no small part to the fact they got the bomb.”For Dr. Kelanic at Defense Priorities, there are three key ways the war boosted Iranians’ interest in getting the bomb – and none favors a diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue, she says. The war hardened the conclusion that conventional deterrence doesn’t work. U.S. and Israeli attacks this year eliminated many of the more moderate leaders who for decades opposed going nuclear. Also eliminated was Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had issued a fatwa banning development of a nuclear weapon. There is virtually no trust of the U.S. or its commitment to its agreements after two wars were launched while negotiations were ongoing. Referencing that last point, Dr. Kelanic says that to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program that includes international oversight and inspections, “some level of trust of the U.S. and its word would be necessary.” Deepen your worldviewwith Monitor Highlights.Politics with respectGet political stories with respectful analysis.There‘s a world of new ideas in everyBooks newsletter.There‘s more to life, enrich yours withCulture & Learning weekly.Follow humanity‘s discoveries withScience & Nature stories in your inbox.Gain a spiritual perspectivefrom the stories in your inbox.Want to understand the deeper impact of critical events? Learn the Monitor‘s insight.Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads. But achieving the requisite trust will be difficult at best, Dr. Acton says.Noting that the U.S. “reneged on the JCPOA,” the deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program reached in 2015 during the Obama administration, he says, “What the Iranians take from that experience is that the U.S. can’t be trusted to abide by any deal they have signed.” ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LoginReal news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.The Christian Science Monitor was founded in 1908 to lift the standard of journalism and uplift humanity. We aim to “speak the truth in love.” Our goal is not to tell you what to think, but to give you the essential knowledge and understanding to come to your own intelligent conclusions. Join us in this mission by subscribing.