Iran's Assembly of Experts, a body of Islamic jurists tasked with choosing the supreme leader, has become the first governing institution to call for a review of the country's defense doctrine, potentially paving the way for a reversal of the religious ban on nuclear weapons.
In a statement released on Thursday, the assembly called for reviewing Iran's membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its defense doctrine to establish adequate deterrence, describing the move as an “unavoidable necessity” and a “public and national demand.”
The intervention carries particular religious significance because the assembly comprises senior clerics, some of whom are qualified to exercise independent Islamic legal reasoning. Their support for reconsidering the doctrine could help weaken the religious justification for Iran's longstanding prohibition on nuclear weapons, based on a decree by the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The assembly is constitutionally responsible for appointing and overseeing Iran's supreme leader. It has no direct authority over nuclear policy, but its statement gives institutional weight to demands previously voiced largely by hardline lawmakers and commentators.
Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful, citing Khamenei's religious ruling against weapons of mass destruction.
Iran's security chief Mohsen Rezaei said last month that changing the nuclear doctrine was under discussion but that neither the government nor the broader establishment had made a new decision.
Earlier this week, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran remained committed to the NPT.
Hardliners press for nuclear policy shift
Tehran's interim Friday prayer leader, Mohammad-Javad Haj Ali-Akbari, described revising the nuclear doctrine as a national demand on October 30. Lawmaker Ahmad Naderi has openly advocated acquiring an atomic bomb.
Hardliners have also urged Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to overturn his father Ali Khamenei's religious decree prohibiting the production of nuclear weapons. Others have proposed enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels while stopping short of manufacturing a bomb.
Reformist figures have challenged claims that developing nuclear weapons enjoys broad public support. Separately, Nour News, a website close to the Supreme National Security Council, warned against allowing crowd slogans to substitute for expert assessment of nuclear policy.
Warning of retaliation
The assembly also warned that another attack on Iran would trigger an “immediate and effective response without geographical limits” from the armed forces.
Its language echoed instructions attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei in an account published by the Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Tasnim news agency on October 31. That account did not announce an order to develop nuclear weapons.
Beyond military policy, the assembly called for establishing a “war economy headquarters” involving different branches of government and operating under the supreme leader's oversight.
It also urged action against what it described as the enemy's “cultural assault,” particularly concerning chastity and hijab.
A discussion on Iranian state television signaled cautious openness to future nuclear talks with Washington, with a commentator describing flexibility over preliminary exchanges while insisting Tehran’s conditions for ending the war must first be met.
Vahid Khazab, introduced as a military and political analyst, said on the state broadcaster’s Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time) talk show on Monday night that a significant development amid mediation efforts was Tehran’s willingness to discuss its nuclear program through intermediaries.
His account suggested room for diplomacy, but did not amount to an official announcement of a change in Iran’s negotiating position.
Iran has insisted that Washington accept its seven demands and end the war before nuclear negotiations begin. Khazab described preliminary discussions through intermediaries as a sign of “flexibility.”
However, he said, those discussions were limited to determining the issues that could be addressed in future nuclear negotiations, once Iran’s initial conditions had been accepted and the war ended.
Proposed nuclear compromise
According to Khazab, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has raised the possibility of allowing Iran to continue uranium enrichment at 3.67%. His account did not establish whether Washington had accepted that provision.
In exchange, the proposals include diluting Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, which Khazab put at 400 kilograms, or converting it into fuel rods for nuclear reactors.
The proposed arrangement would also include the release of part of Iran’s frozen assets, the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and ultimately the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Khazab said.
Tehran would likely regard any US acceptance of enrichment inside Iran as a major concession, he said. However, it would seek to negotiate how its highly enriched uranium stockpile is diluted and how much nuclear material remains inside the country.
He added that some Iranian experts had suggested gradual dilution to preserve part of the country’s nuclear capabilities for the “future, post-Trump era.”
Parallel mediation efforts
Pakistan, China, Iraq, Turkey and Qatar have been pursuing diplomatic initiatives amid concerns about renewed US military strikes against Iran.
Nima Akbarkhani, also introduced as a military expert on the program, said people with what he described as “greater access” had told him that the scale of mediation efforts in recent days was unprecedented compared with previous initiatives.
China has been among the countries involved. Ali Bagheri-Kani, a deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, traveled to China in early November and met with Beijing’s special envoy for Middle Eastern affairs, Zhai Jun.
Zhai subsequently traveled to Iran on November 8. According to Khazab, he met not only with Iranian Foreign Ministry officials but also with Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf.
Iraq has also been involved. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaydi traveled to Iran late last week on an unannounced visit.
Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, reported that al-Zaydi met with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf. However, the agency said he had not obtained what it described as “a result satisfactory to the United States.”
Turkey has also been seeking to facilitate an agreement through political contacts with Washington and Tehran.
According to remarks attributed to Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke with Trump and expressed concern about renewed military attacks against Iran, urging him to refrain from further strikes.
Qatar, which has served as one of the main channels of communication between Tehran and Washington in recent months, is also attempting to bring the two sides back to negotiations.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani traveled to Washington on Monday and met with Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
Former Qatari prime minister and foreign minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani has also emphasized the need to resolve regional disputes.
Khazab interpreted his recent emphasis on cooperation to end Iran’s blockade as a possible shift in Qatar’s calculations under wartime conditions.
Iran denies plans for Vance-Rezaei meeting
Khazab also addressed reports that Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, could meet Vance in Qatar next week.
The discussion followed reports on Monday citing Kalin as saying Qatar would host the US vice president and Iran’s security chief the following week. Türkiye newspaper carried the Turkish intelligence chief’s remarks.
In his Monday night comments, Khazab suggested that reports of a possible meeting were not necessarily false, interpreting Iranian denials as a rejection of the existence of a specific arrangement.
According to the analyst, whether a meeting could take place would depend on Washington announcing its acceptance of Iran’s seven initial conditions for ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed reports of the meeting as “speculation and media fabrication” and described them as “baseless from the outset.”
“There are no plans for such a meeting,” he said.
Rezaei subsequently told Lebanon-based Al Mayadeen television in an interview on Tuesday that “the Americans’ claims about the continuation of negotiations or the holding of a meeting in Qatar are outright lies.”
He said the claims were being circulated solely to ease economic pressure and drive down oil prices.
Khazab’s argument for conditional engagement rested on Tehran’s distrust of Washington. He accused the United States of violating its commitments after an earlier agreement and memorandum of understanding, leading to renewed hostilities.
For that reason, he said, Iran did not want to enter another round of negotiations that might produce a temporary agreement followed by a return to war.
“We have no objection to negotiations, no objection to talking. But it must be done in a way that genuinely removes the threat of war,” Khazab said.
Iran's parliament is preparing to consider allowing a non-cleric to head the Intelligence Ministry for the first time, under a proposal that would also give the supreme leader direct appointment powers over two new bodies within the ministry.
Parliamentary presidium spokesman Abbas Goudarzi said Tuesday that an urgent bill removing the requirement of ijtihad, an advanced qualification in Islamic jurisprudence, would be placed on parliament's agenda next week, ISNA reported.
Under the proposal, two organizations responsible for "internal security" and "ideological affairs" would be established within the ministry. Their directors would be appointed by Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, while the intelligence minister would continue to be nominated by the president and approved by parliament.
Goudarzi described the two organizations as a substitute for the minister’s religious qualification.
He said the change would help resolve a vacancy lasting nearly eight months, following the killing of Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, a clerical figure, in an Israeli strike in March. The ministry has since been run by an acting minister whose identity has not been publicly disclosed.
Four decades of clerical intelligence chiefs
Since the ministry’s establishment in 1984, every permanent intelligence minister has been a cleric, under a law passed in 1983 requiring religious education equivalent to ijtihad.
Clerical leadership has not insulated the ministry from scandals over repression. Dissidents were assassinated inside Iran and abroad during Ali Fallahian’s tenure from 1989 to 1997. His successor, Ghorbanali Dorri Najafabadi, resigned in 1999 after the ministry acknowledged its agents’ involvement in the 1998 murders of dissidents and writers.
Control of the ministry has also brought presidents into conflict with the supreme leader. In 2011, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi, but Ali Khamenei ordered his reinstatement, demonstrating the limits of presidential authority over the ministry.
A broader selection process, new appointments
The proposal follows conflicting statements from lawmakers about whether the change had received committee approval.
Amir Hayat Moghadam, deputy chairman of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, argued Saturday that the requirement had restricted the selection of qualified intelligence professionals.
Committee spokesman Hassan Qashqavi subsequently clarified that members had discussed the issue without formally approving legislation. But Hayat Moghadam claimed committee approval.
The latest proposal would widen the pool of potential ministers while establishing two senior positions filled directly by the supreme leader.
The proposal also comes after years of competition between the ministry and the Revolutionary Guards’ separate intelligence organization.
Whether the change would benefit career intelligence officers or open the position to figures from the Guards remains unclear. No candidate has been publicly identified, and the proposal still requires parliamentary approval and clearance by the Guardian Council.
President Donald Trump’s talks with Qatar’s prime minister come amid a renewed diplomatic push to end the Iran war, but securing terms both Washington and Tehran can present as a victory remains a central obstacle, analysts told Iran International.
Trump and Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani met behind closed doors in the Oval Office on Monday, and Axios reported that their discussions focused on Iran. The Qatari prime minister also met Vice President JD Vance earlier in the day.
An Iranian official told Al-Monitor on Friday that the country’s nuclear program was “under discussion” with mediators. Tehran has said negotiations depend on Washington meeting its demands, including sanctions relief and the release of billions of dollars in frozen assets.
Trump needs a nuclear achievement to justify the war, not just the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, said Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East negotiator now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“It’s the nuclear issue. He needs a win to justify this war,” Miller told Iran International.
“And I don’t know whether the Iranians are prepared to make that concession or what Trump would consider to be a win that they could accept. So I think that’s a huge problem.”
Who moves first?
The new round of diplomacy has not settled the basic dispute: whether economic and military concessions should come before progress on Iran’s nuclear program, or after.
Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch of Israeli military intelligence and now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said an interest in ending the war should not be mistaken for an agreement in sight.
“I believe both sides genuinely want to find a way to end this war, but that does not mean they are close to an agreement,” he told Iran International.
Iran wants Washington to meet its conditions on Hormuz, the naval blockade, oil exports and other economic restrictions before nuclear talks begin. Washington wants movement on the nuclear issue much earlier, he said. “The problem is not simply what each side wants, but who moves first.”
A breakthrough was possible, Citrinowicz said, if Washington accepted a different sequence of reciprocal steps. “Without meaningful American flexibility, however, I see little reason to expect Iran to abandon its red lines.”
Miller criticized the interim memorandum of understanding reached in June, which was meant to open the way to nuclear talks but collapsed soon afterward. It committed Washington to a sequence that favored Iran, he said, calling it “one of the worst negotiated documents in the history of US diplomacy.”
Two definitions of victory
Even if negotiators settle the order of steps, both governments would have to defend the concessions at home as achievements.
Trump could claim victory by reopening Hormuz, lowering energy prices, ending the fighting and securing an Iranian commitment not to build nuclear weapons, Citrinowicz said. Tehran would need an outcome it could present as a success too.
“After surviving months of attacks, the Iranian leadership is not going to accept an agreement that looks like surrender,” he said.
Iran could reopen Hormuz, stop attacks on shipping and regional infrastructure, return to nuclear talks and possibly accept tighter international monitoring, he said. In return it would expect real steps on sanctions, oil exports, frozen assets and guarantees against further attacks.
Miller doubted Trump’s wish to end the war would outweigh his fear of looking beaten. “I think he’d want to be done with this, but I don’t know if he’s prepared to spend the next three years being called a loser,” he said.
Eric Mandel, founder of the Middle East Political Information Network, said a deal could let Trump declare victory while leaving the nuclear dispute open.
“The president would like to have a diplomatic solution. The president is looking for victories. He may claim victories where there aren’t,” Mandel told Iran International.
Tehran was drawing out the talks to wait Trump out, Mandel said, and economic relief in exchange for promises of future nuclear concessions could throw the Islamic Republic a lifeline without securing lasting limits.
A meeting is not a breakthrough
Conflicting reports over a possible meeting between Vance and Iran’s security chief show how uncertain direct contact remains.
Turkey’s intelligence chief, Ibrahim Kalin, said Qatar would host Vance and Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, next week, the Turkish newspaper Türkiye reported. The Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, then quoted a senior Iranian security official as denying any meeting was planned and saying Washington must first act on Iran’s seven conditions.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Tuesday there were no plans for Rezaei to meet Vance. The war, he said, would end neither through military action nor through more sanctions. “The only way to end it is diplomacy and acceptance of the Islamic Republic’s conditions.”
Citrinowicz said Rezaei should not be expected to break with the Islamic Republic’s established positions. “He is deeply rooted in the Iranian political and security establishment,” he said. “He is not someone who can simply be persuaded to abandon the regime’s fundamental positions in exchange for an American offer.”
Rezaei is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice over his alleged role in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. He and Tehran deny involvement. As commander of the Revolutionary Guards during the Iran-Iraq war, he led the failed Karbala-4 offensive of December 1986, in which Iran suffered heavy losses.
The decisive question, Citrinowicz said, is whether Vance has Trump’s authority to offer something substantially different.
“A failed meeting could be more dangerous than no meeting at all,” he said. Trump might conclude that diplomacy had run its course and order more strikes to force concessions.
Continued economic pressure, indirect talks and a limited interim deal would remain options, he said, but failure to close the gaps could raise the risk of a return to war.
Four Iranian reformist intellectuals have urged Tehran to seize an opportunity for diplomacy following Donald Trump's midterm election defeat, while warning that the US president could respond to his political setback by escalating rather than ending the war.
Writing in three articles published in the reformist newspaper Etemad on Sunday, November 8, Mohammad-Javad Haghshenas, sociologist Mahmoud Sadri, international relations analyst Alireza Ghandriz and political analyst Alireza Rajaei offered differing assessments of what Democratic control of Congress could mean for negotiations.
Their shared premise is that the elections have raised the domestic cost of the war for Trump without removing his authority to wage it. Trump himself acknowledged that “part of it was Iran,” while defending his decision to attack.
Haghshenas, a former leader of the National Trust Party, offered the most optimistic assessment, arguing that Tehran should move quickly rather than wait for uncertain political developments in Washington.
Citing reports of a purported letter from Vice President JD Vance proposing direct talks, Haghshenas argued that Vance, a potential contender for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, had a political interest in ending a war that has damaged his party.
Echoing Qatar's prime minister, he urged both sides to accept a workable agreement rather than hold out for an ideal one.
Making a deal politically possible
Sadri and Ghandriz, writing jointly, argued that any agreement must be politically defensible in both Tehran and Washington.
They warned that Democratic opposition to Trump's handling of the war should not be mistaken for opposition to pressure on Iran.
President George W. Bush, they wrote, responded to the Republican defeat in the 2006 midterm elections by ordering a military surge in Iraq rather than withdrawing.
Citing the gradual normalisation of US-Vietnam relations in 1995 as a model, they proposed starting with limited humanitarian and maritime cooperation before expanding civil, academic and business ties.
Above all, they warned that presenting an agreement in Iran as an American surrender would undermine the very figures in Washington whose support would be needed to sustain it.
The danger of a wounded Trump
Rajaei offered the most guarded assessment, comparing Trump to a political gambler who might raise the stakes rather than accept a visible defeat. He stressed that he was describing political behaviour, not making a psychological judgment.
He outlined three possible scenarios: a limited agreement, continued pressure through sanctions and military threats, or renewed escalation triggered by failed negotiations, Israeli pressure or miscalculation.
Rather than trying to predict Trump's next move, Rajaei urged Tehran to strengthen crisis management, civilian resilience and transparent public communication.
His warning comes as Washington continues to combine diplomatic signals with military and economic pressure.
On the eve of the midterms, Trump said a deal with Iran “could happen,” and Tehran has since conveyed proposals through Qatari mediators. Meanwhile, the US naval blockade and sanctions remain in place.
Reports of preparations for a larger US offensive and the expected arrival of an aircraft carrier group in the region have added to uncertainty.
The conflicting signals make it difficult for Tehran to distinguish genuine negotiating opportunities from attempts to extract concessions under pressure.
Trump's record of abrupt changes in negotiating positions, including his public rejection of Iran's account of the Islamabad memorandum in June, adds to the risks of relying on a sweeping agreement rather than limited, reciprocal steps.
Each reversal could also strengthen Iranian hardliners who argue that Washington cannot be trusted, echoing Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's November 4 warning against expecting changes in US policy simply because political control shifts between parties.
The three articles offer a snapshot of reformist thinking at a moment when Tehran faces competing pressures to negotiate and maintain its confrontational posture.
Haghshenas sees an opportunity that should be seized quickly. Sadri and Ghandriz argue that any agreement must withstand political opposition on both sides. Rajaei warns that Trump's electoral defeat could encourage escalation rather than compromise.
What unites them is a warning that Trump's electoral defeat is neither an Iranian victory nor a guarantee of American restraint.
More than 78,500 people have died in road accidents in Iran over four years, yet the government is seeking to delay new vehicle safety standards despite repeated warnings about the quality of domestically manufactured cars.
Road accidents killed 10,357 people in the first six months of the current Iranian calendar year, ILNA news agency reported on Sunday, November 8, citing figures released a day earlier by Iran's Forensic Medicine Organization.
The figure was down just 0.4 percent from 10,401 deaths during the same period last year.
Another 224,220 people injured in road accidents were referred to forensic medical centers during the six-month period, an increase of 10.8 percent from a year earlier.
Industry minister seeks delay in safety standards
Poor-quality vehicles, unsafe roads and ineffective public education are among the main causes of Iran's road safety crisis, according to critics who say authorities have failed to address the underlying problems.
Traffic police chief Teymour Hosseini has previously urged the Ministry of Industry and the National Standards Organization to improve vehicle safety, arguing that higher traffic fines alone cannot reduce fatalities without safer roads, better-equipped cars and stronger enforcement.
However, Industry Minister Mohammad Atabak asked First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref in a letter dated November 6 to postpone the implementation of new vehicle safety standards by at least one year.
Atabak cited foreign currency shortages, the country's emergency conditions and automakers' inability to invest in developing and redesigning vehicle platforms as reasons for the request.
If approved, the postponement would allow manufacturers to continue production under existing regulations, delaying an increase in mandatory vehicle standards from 85 to 122 requirements, along with new fuel consumption rules.
The proposed delay comes despite repeated warnings about vehicle safety and the country's persistently high road death toll.
"People die in road accidents because of their poor driving, and it has nothing to do with the quality of domestically manufactured cars," Mostafa Mirsalim, a member of Iran's Expediency Council, said on November 8.
Mirsalim also described criticism linking domestic vehicle quality to road fatalities as unfair accusations against automakers.
Road accidents kill 78,510 in four years
Annual figures from Iran's Forensic Medicine Organization show that road deaths rose from 16,778 in the year ending March 2022 to 19,490 in the year ending March 2023.
Fatalities reached 20,045 in the year ending March 2024, the highest figure in the five-year period, before falling to 19,435 in the year ending March 2025 and rising again to 19,540 in the year ending March 2026.
Together, road accidents killed 78,510 people between March 2022 and March 2026, with annual deaths exceeding 19,000 throughout the four-year period.
Iran launched a national "No to Accidents" campaign in 2025 to reduce traffic fatalities, but ILNA questioned whether short-term initiatives could address the scale of the problem.
"It is unrealistic to expect that short-term campaigns and general recommendations can contain a crisis rooted in a combination of human, technical, infrastructural and managerial factors," ILNA wrote.
The news agency called for measurable targets and deadlines for the institutions responsible for road safety, including the Ministry of Roads, the Road Maintenance and Transportation Organization, municipalities and emergency medical services.
Young adults account for largest share of deaths
People aged 18 to 24 accounted for the largest share of road fatalities during the first six months of the current Iranian year, with 1,868 deaths, representing 18 percent of the total.
Another 1,555 victims were aged 30 to 39, while 1,514 were between 40 and 49 years old.
The fatalities also included 455 children aged 10 or younger.
Health Minister Mohammad Reza Zafarghandi described the roughly 20,000 annual road deaths as one of Iran's demographic challenges on June 16. Zafarghandi had previously said that 26 percent of road accident deaths were preventable.
The high number of young victims also raises questions about the government's population policies, which emphasize increasing birth rates and supporting infertility treatment.
"Population growth policies cannot be limited to encouraging childbirth and supporting infertility treatment. Preserving the lives of people already living in the country is equally important," ILNA wrote.