Iran is capable of producing nuclear weapons and an existential threat could cause a rethink of the Supreme Leader's injunction against them, one of his top foreign policy advisors told Lebanese news outlet Al Mayadeen.
"If the Islamic Republic of Iran faces an existential threat, we would have no choice but to adjust our military doctrine," Former foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said in an interview with the pro-Tehran channel.
"We already have the technical capabilities to produce weapons; only a religious decree forbidding nuclear weapons prevents us from doing so," he added, referring to a religious decree by the country's ultimate decision maker Ali Khamenei.
Kharrazi heads the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations and has hinted before that Iran could ditch its stated opposition to acquiring nuclear weapons but was offering his first public remarks since Israeli air strikes on Iran on Oct. 26.
Members of the body he leads are by handpicked by Khamenei and its reports and advisories have often presaged major policy shifts by the ruling system.
Iran has maintained that it will not pursue nuclear arms because the 2010 fatwa banned all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear bombs. The decree could potentially be interpreted by Iranian decision-makers as an advisory opinion lacking legal status, however.
Israel launched air strikes on military targets in Iran over the weekend in response to a missile barrage Tehran fired on the Jewish state on Oct. 1.
The attack hit missile facilities and air defense capabilities, killing four Iranian soldiers and a civilian.
Kharrazi told Al Mayadaeen that Iran would seek to expand the reach of weapons. "There’s a possibility that Iran may increase its missile range," he said.
Upping Iran's official rhetoric, all three top leaders of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Thursday said a damaging counterstrike to Israel by Tehran was assured.
The report, presented by Mai Sato, marks the first submission since she assumed the role in August 2024. It outlines issues such as the use of the death penalty, suppression of civil liberties, and gender-based discrimination, while proposing constructive engagement from Iran with international human rights bodies.
In her report, Sato identifies three primary areas of concern: transparency, the right to life, and gender equality. She emphasizes that Iran continues to experience “deficits in the administration of justice such as the independence of the judiciary and the lack of accountability and impunity for human rights violations; practices that amount to torture, cruel, or degrading treatment of detainees”.
Citing a lack of access to accurate data and limited responses to international inquiries, Sato advocates for a gender-sensitive and intersectional approach to address these embedded issues.
According to the report, Iran maintains one of the highest execution rates globally, with at least 93 executions in August 2024 alone. Sato notes, “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party, restricts the application of the death penalty to ‘most serious crimes,’ understood as intentional killing”.
She argues that Iran’s judicial process often falls short, citing cases where dissidents face the death penalty on broadly defined charges like “spreading corruption on earth”.
Amnesty International reports that Iran executed 853 people in 2023, marking the highest number in the last eight years—a 48% increase from 2022 and a 172% rise from 2021.
This surge in executions reflects a broader strategy by Iran’s Islamic government to instill fear and stifle dissent. Since the 2022 nationwide protests sparked by Mahsa Amini’s death in morality-police custody, the regime has weaponized the death penalty to crush opposition and tighten its authoritarian control.
Gender discrimination and Woman, Life, Freedom movement
The report features a worsening human rights climate for women in Iran, particularly with the government’s enforcement of hijab laws. Sato writes, “while the wearing of hijab can be encouraged as a reflection of the right to freedom of religion or belief, it should not be made compulsory by law with penalties for those who do not comply.”
Iran's Guardian Council has approved the contentious Hijab and Chastity Bill, now awaiting a vote in Parliament, as the country confronts the looming threat of an Israeli attack that could challenge national unity.
Introduced by President Ebrahim Raisi's government in July 2023, the Hijab and Chastity Bill imposes strict penalties for non-compliance with mandatory hijab laws. First-time offenders would be fined 30 million rials (about $50), with the amount automatically deducted from their bank accounts. Repeat violations could incur fines of up to 240 million rials ($400), a significant financial strain in a country where average monthly salaries range from $200 to $250.
Iran’s stance, as noted in its response, argues that “The rule of hijab and Islamic covering in Islam is intended to ensure the safety of women and to enable their broader participation in society.” The government describes the hijab as a measure “to ensure the safety of women and to enable their broader participation in society”. Sato counters that “women who do not wish to wear a hijab have the right to participate in the community,” and deserve “their safety and autonomy preserved whether a hijab is worn or not”.
International cooperation and civil society engagement
While recognizing some incremental reforms in Iran’s penal laws, Sato says that civil society groups “are engaged in working on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, both inside and outside the country”. She stresses the need for increased collaboration, expressing that “incremental steps towards the implementation of human rights can be identified, and assessed in a holistic manner”.
In conclusion, the report urges Iran to ratify key human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention Against Torture, as part of a renewed commitment to international human rights standards.
These commentators are individuals permitted by Iran’s Islamic establishment to voice opinions in the media, particularly on sensitive issues like foreign policy. For months, many in government-controlled media have voiced concerns about the possibility of a second Trump term, given his hardline stance toward the Islamic Republic during his first tenure.
Foreign policy analyst and former lawmaker Shahryar Heidari told Tehran's conservative Nameh News website that Donald Trump’s election would likely escalate tensions in the Middle East.
Heidari suggested that, in contrast, Kamala Harris would approach the West Asian region with more caution. However, he emphasized that US policy in the region is largely consistent, regardless of who is elected; what may shift, he explained, are the tactics used to implement that policy.
Heidari added that “both Trump and Harris fully support Israel, though Trump’s rhetoric is more hardline.” He concluded that it ultimately makes little difference for Iran whether Trump or Harris is elected. However, a Trump victory would likely have a more significant psychological impact on Iranian officials, despite his seemingly milder stance in recent weeks. His unpredictability, nonetheless, could lead to escalating tensions in the region.
International relations analyst Ali Bigdeli contended that nothing is certain in politics, so it cannot be said with confidence that Trump’s election would lead to a war between Iran and the US. He described Trump as a businessman for whom the US economy remains the top priority.
Currently, the situation of US economy is not that great, he argued, and the country is having problems about inflation and immigration. The voters believe the Republicans are more likely to be focused on domestic political issues.
Generally, Bigdeli opined, Iran may favor Harris as the next US president, as Tehran has historically had better relations with Democrats. Many Iranian politicians view Trump as a challenging leader; he was the one who withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran, resulting in significant issues for Tehran due to the sanctions he imposed.
Bigdeli also said that Iran is not going to like any of the two candidates anyway. Iranian officials tend to view any US government as "enemy." Nonetheless, Iran is not likely to favor Trump over Harris as he has closer ties with Israel.
Iran's former ambassador to London, Jalal Sadatian, told reporters that neither Trump nor Harris is likely to seek war with Iran. He noted that while Israel has consistently pushed for a US-Iran conflict, the United States has so far refused to engage in such a war.
Sadatian also remarked that polls indicating a lead for one candidate aren’t always reliable, as not everything in a US election depends solely on the popular vote. He added that, given Trump’s past dealings with Iran, there is a general expectation in Iran that a Trump victory would lead to challenging times for the country.
He added that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu prefers Trump as he was the only US President who supported Israel's decision to move its capital to Jerusalem. However, Sadatian also pointed out that the whole political establishment in the United States is Israel's strategic ally and it does not matter which party wins the election.
“While presidents from both parties have initiated wars, one could argue that Democrats are typically ‘doves’ and Republicans ‘hawks,’” Sadatian remarked. He added that, despite the United States' longstanding support for Israel, politicians understand that any war with Iran would harm US interests in the region.
Another foreign policy analyst, Ghasem Mohebali, commented, “Trump is closer to Israeli radicals, but this doesn’t necessarily mean he supports the idea of war with Iran. Even if Trump wins the election, negotiations with Iran can’t be ruled out, although the situation is very different from 2015.”
Mohebali emphasized that the United States is reluctant to enter a war with Iran, as it would harm US interests. Conversely, he noted, Russia and China—who stand to benefit from such a conflict—might directly support Iran to strategically weaken the United States.
