Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, has publicly questioned the value of staying in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. "Why shouldn't we pursue an atomic bomb?" he asked, according to Mehr, arguing that the attacks had created "nuclear insecurity."

Rezaei is not a marginal voice. He commanded the IRGC during the Iran-Iraq war and now heads the body that coordinates the regime's security and foreign policy. When the official responsible for national security floats a bomb in public, it is a signal, whether aimed at foreign negotiators or at a domestic audience.

The position draws on a long-standing doctrine. Ali Khamenei repeatedly argued that every step back before "arrogant powers" invites them to take a step forward, a line carried by the judiciary's Mizan news agency. Under that logic, any concession on the nuclear file looks like the first retreat in a chain that leads to missiles, regional proxies and eventually the system itself.

There is also a structural reason. The IRGC's mandate and budget depend on a permanent external threat, and Mojtaba Khamenei's succession was secured under wartime emergency. A durable settlement would reopen questions about living standards, accountability and legitimacy that the war has pushed aside. For parts of the leadership, those questions are more dangerous than sanctions, and nuclear brinkmanship keeps them off the table.