Iran, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and sovereigntys price

In a landmark interview during the Cold War, Pakistan’s then-president and military chief General Muhammed Zia-ul-Haq defended his country’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with a succinct assertion: “Freedom has no price.”

For Zia and for other non-signatory states like India, Israel, and South Sudan, the ability to independently chart national security policy outweighed the diplomatic pressure to join a treaty they viewed as structurally biased.

This sentiment resonates strongly today in Iran, which has been a signatory to the NPT since its inception in 1970 but now faces escalating provocations that test the very foundation of its sovereignty.

At the core of the issue is whether Iran’s continued adherence to the NPT remains tenable in the face of covert sabotage, military threats and a conspicuous lack of reciprocal restraint from nuclear-armed adversaries.

The NPT’s fragile bargain

The NPT is built on a delicate grand bargain: Non-nuclear-weapon states agree not to pursue nuclear arms in exchange for peaceful nuclear cooperation and a commitment from nuclear powers to disarm.

But this framework has long faced criticism for creating a two-tiered global order – where enforcement is uneven and strategic interests often override treaty principles.

Iran’s nuclear program has been under intense international scrutiny for decades. Despite its obligations under the NPT and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Tehran has faced relentless pressure, sanctions, and military threats.

IAEA reports have not confirmed any active pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran, yet the country’s nuclear infrastructure has been repeatedly targeted – reportedly by Israel and, at times, by the United States.

A targeted sovereign state

Recent years have seen Iran absorb significant blows: sabotage at its Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites, cyberattacks like Stuxnet, and assassinations of key nuclear scientists.

In parallel, it has faced psychological warfare and diplomatic isolation, even while continuing to allow IAEA inspections. In June 2025, Tehran’s strategic patience reached a turning point when direct military action by Israel – and with tacit US backing – struck multiple Iranian military and nuclear facilities.

Such attacks are not just violations of sovereignty. They erode the foundational principles of the NPT.

If a signatory state is punished despite compliance, while others with undeclared nuclear arsenals face no consequences, what incentive remains to stay in the treaty?

Strategic restraint or calculated deception?

The present crisis between Iran and Israel is deeply rooted in historical tensions, particularly those arising from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military campaigns targeting the so-called “three H-factors”: Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis.

These actions have further exacerbated an already volatile regional dynamic, contributing to the current geopolitical impasse.

According to the RAND Corporation‘s Brian Michael Jenkins, prior to the United States’ airstrikes Iran had reportedly conveyed a confidential message to President Trump during the G7 summit, cautioning that it possessed the capability to activate sleeper cells to conduct operations within the United States.

In light of this warning, there is growing concern over the potential mobilization of Iran’s proxy forces. For instance, the Houthis in Yemen have already expressed their willingness to reengage in hostilities against Israel. Similarly, Hamas has pledged retaliation, although it remains heavily involved in ongoing conflict with Israeli forces.

While Hezbollah has publicly stated that it does not intend to launch immediate retaliatory actions against either Israel or the United States, its extensive network of regional and global affiliates renders its potential involvement a continuing source of strategic concern.

Despite these provocations, Iran has exercised notable restraint. While it boasts a vast network of regional allies – Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis – it has largely avoided activating these groups in coordinated retaliation.

According to an article by Raz Zimmt published by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS),Tehran has focused on three core objectives: regime survival, preservation of its nuclear infrastructure and protection of its missile and intelligence capabilities.

Iran’s military response has been symbolic but strategically calculated. Its missile strikes demonstrated reach and precision, eroding the myth of Israeli invulnerability without triggering a full-scale war. Drawing from classical military doctrine, including Sun Tzu’s principle of surprise, Iran appears to be pursuing a layered defense strategy – emphasizing misdirection, deterrence and psychological projection.

A crumbling status quo

However, the damage inflicted by recent Israeli operations – especially the loss of senior Iranian military figures and the potential degradation of uranium enrichment capacity – cannot be underestimated. According to a Kari A. Bingen article published by CSIS, attacks on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan may have set back Iran’s nuclear progress significantly.

The message is clear: diplomacy is failing to shield Iran’s sovereign rights under the NPT.

And while Moscow rhetorically supports Tehran, according to the Wall street Journal’s Thomas Grove, Iran has received little in the way of meaningful military assistance.

This isolation – despite formal adherence to international norms – may push Iran toward a path taken by North Korea: NPT withdrawal and a shift to overt nuclear deterrence.

Approaching a red line

As tensions with Israel and the United States escalate, Iran may be nearing a decisive juncture. Continued membership in the NPT, under current conditions, could be perceived domestically as a liability rather than a diplomatic asset. The political cost of perceived submission to a treaty that cannot ensure protection or reciprocity is growing.

From Tehran’s perspective, sovereignty and regime survival are non-negotiable. If military attacks on its nuclear infrastructure persist – and if nuclear-armed adversaries continue to operate above the law – Iran may argue that its only viable response is to exit the NPT and reclaim its strategic autonomy.

In Zia-ul-Haq’s words, “Freedom has no price.” Iran may soon test whether that conviction still holds weight in the international order.