In a high-profile appearance at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) conference in Indonesia, Iranian Majlis (parliament) speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf declared that Iran’s nuclear program would remain purely peaceful and that the Islamic Republic would never pursue nuclear weapons. The remarks, delivered before Muslim-majority nations, reflect Tehran’s long-standing public position on its nuclear intentions. However, the claim arrives amid renewed scrutiny and considerable skepticism from Israel, the United States, and European governments—who cite Iran’s history of secret nuclear activity and its alliances with hostile terror groups as grounds for their concerns.
Ghalibaf’s statement comes at a sensitive time in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The Iranian regime has faced increasing diplomatic and economic pressure following a series of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revelations about uranium enrichment to near weapons-grade levels and restrictions on inspector access. While Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are peaceful—focused on energy production and research—the gap between official proclamations and documented activity in facilities such as Natanz and Fordow remains a source of international tension.
Israeli officials, viewing a potential Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat, consistently warn about the risks posed by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have both emphasized that repeated deceptions, stalled inspections, and intelligence findings—including Israel’s 2018 operation exposing a clandestine Iranian nuclear archive—demonstrate Tehran’s ongoing pursuit of capabilities that could be rapidly reconstituted for weaponization. Israeli assessments contend that Iranian leadership strategically exploits diplomacy to prolong international negotiations while maintaining nuclear breakout options.
American policy under President Donald Trump remains rooted in skepticism toward Iranian denials. The United States has intensified sanctions, demanded full transparency, and warned against complacency in the face of Iranian promises. U.S. officials, echoing their Israeli counterparts, argue that only verifiable and permanent restrictions enforced under strict international oversight can satisfy global security requirements.
The broader regional context complicates trust in Iran’s proclamations. The Islamic Republic is widely recognized as the financial and strategic anchor of the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” coordinating and arming terror groups such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-backed militias across Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Israeli and Western intelligence agencies point to these alliances—particularly in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre, the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust—as evidence of Iran’s destabilizing ambitions and disregard for international norms. Concerns persist that a nuclear-capable Iran would deepen its backing for proxy warfare, emboldening terror organizations under the cover of a nuclear deterrent.
International reactions to Iran’s recent assertions have been cautious. European leaders have urged Tehran to return to full compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), although Israeli and American officials have voiced doubts about the agreement’s effectiveness and the credibility of Iranian pledges. Meanwhile, the IAEA continues to report unresolved issues at Iranian nuclear sites and incomplete disclosures regarding suspicious activities and nuclear material traces.
Diplomatically, Ghalibaf’s speech at the OIC reflects Iran’s attempt to rally support among Muslim states, shifting the narrative toward peaceful development and opposition to what Tehran portrays as unfair Western pressure. However, skeptics argue that Iran’s pattern of nuclear diplomacy—backed by a record of clandestine activity—means that international vigilance must not wane. Israeli analysts stress that any concessions not anchored in rigorous verification and enforcement could prove catastrophic, given the history of broken agreements and the heightened threat environment.
Looking forward, policymakers must weigh the risks of trusting repeated Iranian assurances with the lessons gleaned from intelligence findings and history. Israel continues to advocate for robust intelligence-sharing, credible deterrence measures, and, if necessary, the option of preemptive action to prevent nuclear proliferation in a volatile region.
In summary, while Iran continues to publicly commit to peaceful nuclear activity, the weight of evidence and the security interests of regional and international actors ensure that Ghalibaf’s declarations will be met with continued scrutiny and strategic caution.
