Iran Considers Leaving NPT Amid Unprecedented Israeli Strikes on Nuclear and Military Sites

Amid a dramatic escalation in regional tensions, Iran is now seriously considering withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) — a global agreement aimed at curbing the spread of nuclear weapons while promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

This potential decision comes on the heels of a devastating series of Israeli military strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military leadership.

Parliament Drafting Bill to Exit NPT

Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, is currently drafting legislation that would enable the country to officially exit the NPT. This marks a turning point in Iran’s nuclear policy, which has long insisted that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes such as energy production and scientific research.

If Tehran goes ahead with the withdrawal, it would be the first time a major NPT member has left the treaty since North Korea’s exit in 2003, and it could trigger a domino effect of proliferation concerns across the Middle East.

The NPT: What’s at Stake

Signed in 1968 and force since 1970, the NPT is a cornerstone of global nuclear governance. It seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy, and work towards global disarmament. While Iran is a signatory,

Israel has never signed the treaty, though it is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal. This asymmetry has long fueled tensions in the region.

Israel’s Coordinated Strikes: A Game-Changer

On June 13, Israel launched what is being called an unprecedented, multi-pronged attack on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure.

The scope, scale, and intensity of the operation far exceed previous counter-proliferation actions taken by Israel in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007).

Key Iranian cities — including Tehran, Natanz, Tabriz, Kermanshah, and others — were rocked by explosions. The strikes reportedly killed senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists, including:

• Mohammad Bagheri (Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces)
• Gholamali Rashid (Senior IRGC commander)
• Hossein Salami (Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC)
• Ali Shamkhani (Former Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council)

Additionally, prominent nuclear scientists such as Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi were also killed, dealing a severe blow to Iran’s scientific and technical expertise.

Strategic Targets Hit

Israel’s strikes focused on crippling core elements of Iran’s nuclear program:

• Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility: One of Iran’s most sensitive sites, hosting advanced centrifuges used to enrich uranium. While Iran claimed only surface-level damage, the IAEA confirmed extensive destruction, though no radiation leaks were reported.
• Parchin Military Complex: A suspected nuclear-related site which has long been off-limits to IAEA inspectors.
• Khondab Reactor: A heavy water reactor that could eventually produce weapons-grade plutonium.
• Kermanshah Ballistic Missile Base: A major missile production and storage facility.
• Tabriz: The city houses another nuclear research center and multiple military bases, all of which were reportedly hit.

While Fordow, Iran’s second major enrichment facility near Qom, was not struck in the initial wave — likely due to its deeply buried location — the risk of future attacks remains high. Facilities at Bushehr and Esfahan, including uranium conversion plants, appear to have been spared thus far, but questions remain about the status of Iran’s stockpiles of 60% and 20% enriched uranium.

Geopolitical Fallout and Strategic Risks

The Israeli strikes mark a dramatic shift in tactics — from limited sabotage operations to a broad-based decapitation strike aimed at eliminating both Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the human expertise sustaining them. This development raises critical questions for the future:

1. Effectiveness of the Attack: While extensive, the assault may not have succeeded in eliminating all key components of Iran’s dispersed and fortified nuclear program, especially without U.S. assistance.
2. International Reaction: Key powers such as Russia and China, who have generally supported a diplomatic solution, may now view Israel’s actions as undermining regional stability and dialogue. The IAEA’s involvement and findings will likely play a crucial role in shaping the global narrative
3. Regional Escalation and Proliferation Risks: Iran’s potential exit from the NPT could accelerate a regional arms race, especially if Tehran now feels compelled to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Israel’s undeclared nuclear capability and its refusal to join the NPT further complicate the security dynamics.

Looking Ahead

Iran’s decision on whether to leave the NPT will depend not only on internal political pressures and national pride but also on the response from the international community, including how Washington, Moscow, and Beijing engage in the fallout of the Israeli strikes.

As of now, the Middle East stands on a knife’s edge. The attack may have temporarily slowed Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it has also increased the likelihood of retaliation, regional instability, and the collapse of what little remains of the diplomatic framework that has tried — with mixed success — to curb Iran’s nuclear trajectory.