-Friday World – April 28, 2026
On April 27, 2026, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, a significant and controversial moment unfolded during the opening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. Despite strong objections from the United States and a few Western allies, Iran was elected as one of the 34 vice-presidents of the conference. The nomination came from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), representing 121 developing nations. Vietnam’s Ambassador Do Hung Viet was elected as the main president of the conference.
This was not merely a routine procedural appointment. It symbolized the growing voice of the Global South, the strength of multilateral diplomacy, and the deep divisions over perceived double standards in the global nuclear order. Iran has consistently positioned itself as a strong opponent of nuclear weapons, emphasizing peaceful uses of nuclear technology while calling for complete disarmament by existing nuclear powers.
Iran’s Clear Stance: Nuclear Weapons Are Forbidden
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly issued religious rulings (fatwa) declaring the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons as contrary to Islamic principles. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful — dedicated to energy generation, medical applications, and scientific research. Iranian officials have time and again affirmed that the country has never pursued or supported the development of nuclear weapons.
Instead, Iran has been a vocal advocate for Article VI of the NPT, which calls for good-faith negotiations toward nuclear disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states. Iranian leaders argue that nuclear weapons threaten all of humanity and that their religious, moral, and strategic doctrine rejects them outright. While some Western countries continue to raise questions about Iran’s program, Tehran insists these concerns are politically motivated rather than purely technical.
Only One Country Has Ever Used Nuclear Weapons
History records a stark fact: only the United States has ever used nuclear weapons in warfare. In August 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians instantly and causing long-term radiation suffering across generations. No other nation has resorted to nuclear weapons in conflict to this day.
Iran frequently points to this reality and asks a pointed question: Why does the country that actually used nuclear weapons — and still maintains thousands of them — seek to deny peaceful nuclear technology to developing nations?
Mass Destruction Without Nuclear Weapons: Examples from America and Israel
Nuclear weapons are not the only means of large-scale destruction. Powerful nations have inflicted enormous casualties through conventional and chemical means:
- In World War II, conventional bombing and firebombing campaigns caused massive civilian deaths.
- During the Vietnam War, the United States deployed chemical agents like Agent Orange alongside intense bombing, affecting millions.
- The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.
- The Israel-Palestine conflict has also seen significant loss of civilian life through conventional weaponry.
These examples demonstrate that the capacity for destruction is not limited to nuclear arms. Yet the international system grants special status to a small “nuclear club” while viewing others with suspicion. Iran sharply criticizes this inequality.
The Structure of the NPT and Its Inherent Weaknesses
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty entered into force in 1970. It rests on three main pillars:
1. Non-Proliferation— Preventing non-nuclear states from acquiring weapons.
2. Disarmament— Requiring the five recognized nuclear powers (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China) to pursue negotiations toward eliminating their arsenals.
3. Peaceful Uses— Guaranteeing the right of all parties to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Critics, especially from NAM countries, argue that the disarmament pillar has seen little progress. Nuclear-weapon states continue to modernize their arsenals, while pressure is disproportionately applied to others. Many developing nations view the NPT as inherently discriminatory — it legitimizes nuclear weapons for a few while restricting the rest.
Iran became a party to the NPT in 1970 and has repeatedly defended its rights under Article IV for peaceful nuclear technology.
The Power of 121 Nations: NAM’s Unity
The Non-Aligned Movement, which includes most countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, nominated Iran. These nations believe that:
- Sanctions and pressure on Iran are often politically driven rather than based on objective evidence.
- Western powers apply double standards — for instance, Israel possesses nuclear capabilities outside the NPT framework yet faces no similar scrutiny.
- Developing countries must not be denied access to clean energy and scientific advancement.
Iran described its election as a victory for multilateralism and justice. Tehran stated that the decision proves the world no longer moves solely according to unilateral dictates from Washington.
America’s Objection: Signs of Declining Influence?
The United States strongly opposed Iran’s selection, calling it an “affront” to the credibility of the NPT. American representatives argued that Iran’s record raised serious concerns. Australia, Britain, France, Germany, and the UAE also voiced objections.
However, no formal vote took place. The election followed the established practice of regional and group nominations. The United States registered its protest but could not block the outcome. Many analysts see this as further evidence of diminishing American dominance in multilateral forums. Russia and China opposed efforts to isolate Iran.
Iran dismissed the criticisms as “politically motivated and baseless.”
A Changing Global Landscape
The 2026 NPT Review Conference reflects the shift toward a multipolar world. While the United States and its allies emphasize non-proliferation, NAM countries stress disarmament, equality, and the right to peaceful nuclear energy.
Nations like India, which remain outside the NPT but maintain responsible nuclear programs, observe these developments closely. India has long criticized the treaty’s discriminatory nature and advocated for comprehensive, non-discriminatory disarmament.
Will This Undermine the NPT’s Credibility?
Some critics argue that selecting a country facing proliferation questions as vice-president weakens the treaty’s authority. Supporters counter that the NPT belongs to all its 191 member states. Respecting the will of the majority, especially through established group processes, is part of multilateral democracy. The real threat to the regime, they say, lies in double standards — when nuclear powers expand their arsenals while preaching restraint to others.
Iran’s position remains consistent: Nuclear weapons are a danger to humanity. It seeks only the peaceful benefits guaranteed under the NPT.
The Road Ahead
The Review Conference is scheduled to run for four weeks until late May 2026. Discussions will cover the creation of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, progress on disarmament, and peaceful nuclear cooperation. As vice-president, Iran can help facilitate sessions, though final decisions require consensus.
This episode underscores a fundamental truth: The world is no longer unipolar. The backing of 121 countries highlights the rising unity and influence of the Global South. True success for nuclear non-proliferation will come only when all nations adhere to the same rules — not when some enjoy privileges and exceptions.
Iran’s message is clear: We do not want nuclear weapons because our religious, moral, and strategic outlook rejects them. A country that has itself used nuclear weapons lacks the moral high ground to lecture others. Genuine global peace requires the complete elimination of nuclear arsenals and equal access to peaceful nuclear technology for every nation.
As long as the principle of “rules for the powerful” persists, such diplomatic moments will continue — amplifying the voices of nations long marginalized in international affairs.
Sajjadali Nayani ✍
Friday World – April 28, 2026
