عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
World

Debate in Iran over Khamenei’s Office Considering Nuclear Weapons’ Fatwa Revision

Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Facility (AFP)
Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Facility (AFP)
TT
TT

Debate in Iran over Khamenei’s Office Considering Nuclear Weapons’ Fatwa Revision

Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Facility (AFP)
Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Facility (AFP)

Debate is growing in Iran over changes to its defense policy and a review of the ban on producing nuclear weapons, with the issue reportedly reaching Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office.

In recent days, Iranian media close to Khamenei expressed concerns about the country’s lack of nuclear deterrence. The Tehran Times said that "uncontrolled Israeli threats are driving Iranian calls for nuclear weapons."

On Thursday, the Fars news agency quoted Rasoul Sanai-Rad, a political adviser to Khamenei, warning that any Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites would violate key regional and international boundaries.

Sanai-Rad added that some Iranian politicians are considering changes to nuclear policy, as an attack on energy sites would have serious consequences during and after any conflict.

Iranian military and political leaders have frequently suggested a shift in nuclear policy toward producing nuclear weapons, but they consistently remind the public that this is forbidden by a fatwa from Khamenei.

The current regional tensions are creating a new situation for Iran, especially after recent setbacks for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, its main ally, leading to a belief that Iran is now directly confronting Israel.

Israel is considering its response to Iranian ballistic missile threats. The government is likely to empower Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to decide when and where to strike.

Gallant previously stated that Israel has prepared a “devastating and surprising response to Iran” following an inconclusive call between Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden.

In a session of the Iranian parliament, Deputy Hassanali Akhlaghi Amiri called on the Supreme National Security Council to urgently rethink Iran’s defense doctrine.

Political institutions in Iran are promoting the idea that increasing deterrence against Israel is gaining support among influential and elite groups.

Akhlaghi Amiri asked parliament members, “Why do you limit yourselves to just condemning Israel's actions? Are you afraid? Is life so precious that you accept humiliation?”

He added that revising the fatwa against nuclear weapons, according to Imamite jurisprudence, should consider current circumstances and be presented to the Supreme Leader. However, he acknowledged that “the fatwa still remains in place.”

In 2003, Khamenei issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons, which is considered a binding advisory opinion.

The Iranian government later announced this fatwa during a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. A former Iranian president called the fatwa the best guarantee for Iran's pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology.

According to IAEA estimates, Tehran is close to enriching its uranium stock to nearly 90% within two weeks, a level that would allow it to produce a nuclear bomb.

Most Viewed

 
 
World

Moscow’s ‘Tactical’ Retreat in Syria, Shift in Priorities

A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)
A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Moscow’s ‘Tactical’ Retreat in Syria, Shift in Priorities

A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)
A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)

The recent successive withdrawals of Russian military forces from observation points near the frontlines with the occupied Syrian Golan have raised questions about Russia’s positioning in the context of the escalating confrontation in Lebanon, which has quickly spilled over into Syrian territory. These withdrawals also prompt inquiries about Russia’s priorities in the coming phase regarding the anticipated developments, particularly in light of what Israel and the United States call the “rearrangement of the regional situation and the curbing of Iranian influence in the region.”
In recent days, reports have surfaced of Russian military forces unexpectedly evacuating sites described by Israeli sources as strategic. One of the most notable locations was an observation point on Tel al-Hara in northern Daraa province, followed by similar withdrawals from Tel al-Shaar and Tel Mashara in the Quneitra countryside. Russian forces collected their equipment and took down their flag before departing.
It is now evident that the Russian move followed military activities by Israeli forces a few days earlier near the border between Quneitra province and the occupied Syrian Golan.
These movements involved the deployment of a significant number of Israeli tanks and military vehicles in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Additionally, over recent months, Israel has been opening pathways in the Syrian Golan and detonating minefields near the ceasefire line multiple times, coinciding with increasing strikes within Syrian territory and reports from the Israeli side about the arrival of elite Iranian militia forces in southern Syria.
Moscow had previously established 17 military observation points in the area and patrolled the frontlines to maintain de-escalation between Hezbollah forces and Israel. Thus, the current withdrawals leave the region vulnerable to further escalation.
This indicates that Moscow is unwilling to engage in confrontation or keep its forces in the line of fire. It also appears unable to stop the ongoing deterioration.
Two hypotheses have emerged to explain these successive Russian withdrawals. The first suggests that Moscow received a warning from Israel about upcoming military operations in the region and that Israeli forces intend to target Hezbollah positions and other Iran-backed militias. The second hypothesis, which comes from Russian diplomats speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, claims that Russia is not yielding to Israeli threats and that these withdrawals do not signal a green light for Israel to expand its operations in Syria. On the contrary, the move might aim to give Iran and its allied groups more room for military engagement against Israel.
In both cases, Moscow seems to prefer distancing its forces from potential developments. Some estimates suggest that Russian forces will continue to withdraw from observation points in areas experiencing heightened tensions. However, these “tactical withdrawals,” as described by Russian observers, do not indicate that Russia is planning more drastic actions. Instead, the increased significance of Russia’s military presence in Syria, in light of its escalating confrontation with the West, shows that Moscow is unlikely to reassess its strategic presence in the region in the near future, according to a Russian analyst who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat.
This analysis, however, depends on the nature of future developments, particularly regarding Israel’s potential plans to expand its operations in Syria.
The Kremlin’s warnings on Thursday pointed to the possibility of wider deterioration in Syria. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that any potential expansion of Israel’s military actions in Syria could have catastrophic consequences for the Middle East. However, he refrained from answering questions about Russia’s potential response should Israel launch a ground offensive in Syria to pursue Iranian and Hezbollah forces. He only remarked that it is “not appropriate to speculate on future developments at this time.”
Simultaneously, Moscow appears to have escalated its rhetoric criticizing Israeli military actions in Syria. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s angry response, describing recent Israeli strikes as an “aggression targeting civilians and a blatant violation of international laws,” marked a significant shift in Russia’s tone.
Commonly recognized is the fact that Moscow began reducing its forces in Syria in the summer of 2022, a few months after the war in Ukraine began. At that time, Russia provided extensive support to Hezbollah and other Iran-backed militias in Syria, including facilitating the transfer of weapons and equipment to these groups after Syrian airports under Iranian control were bombed. Moscow also turned a blind eye to Hezbollah’s redeployment in southern Syria, despite this violating a previous agreement that required Hezbollah and its allies to stay 80 kilometers away from the Golan.
Russia has withdrawn thousands of soldiers and officers, moving them to Ukraine, where the front is more pressing and crucial at this time. Russian military circles explained this move by stating that Russian ground forces no longer have specific missions in Syria after accomplishing their main task of fighting terrorism and reinforcing the Syrian government’s control.
However, reducing the number of troops does not mean Moscow is deprioritizing Syria. According to a military analyst, the strategic importance of Russian air and long-range capabilities has grown beyond Syria’s borders, reflecting Russia’s broader interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa.
This reassessment of priorities predates the Gaza conflict, which has now spread to Lebanon and is seriously threatening Syria. It’s important to recall President Vladimir Putin’s remarks roughly two months ago when he warned, during Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow, that the region was on the brink of very dangerous developments, with Syria not exempt from them.
Experts note that Moscow values its strategic military presence in Syria, but seeks to maintain it at minimal cost. Last year, Putin said that Russian forces’ presence in Syria is “temporary and will continue as long as it serves Russia’s interests in this vital region, which is very close to us.” He emphasized that Moscow is not planning to withdraw these units from Syria yet.
However, it was notable that Putin referred to Russian deployments in Syria as “points” rather than “bases,” indicating that Moscow is not constructing long-term structures there. He added that Russia could withdraw its military personnel “quickly and without material losses” if necessary.
Experts believe that Putin’s remarks precisely define the levels of Russian engagement should the situation worsen, particularly if Russian forces lose their strategic advantage in Syria. Nevertheless, according to some experts, Moscow is likely to continue complicating the situation for Washington by supporting the escalation of various forces against US interests in the region, especially in Syria and Iraq. This could also apply to Israel’s actions in and around Syria in the coming phase.
According to analysts, this policy will persist until Moscow formulates new strategies based on how the situation evolves.