Iran’s New Leader Silent on Nuclear Weapons as US Weighs War Options

WASHINGTON — Days after being named Iran’s next supreme leader, and over a week since U.S. And Israeli bombing raids decimated much of his family, Mojtaba Khamenei issued his first statement on Thursday demanding retribution for the war unleashed by the alliance. He called for continued disruption of shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, vowed to open new fronts against the United States and Israel, and warned Gulf states hosting U.S. Bases would remain targets. But it was what the new supreme leader didn’t say that has Washington deeply concerned: any mention of Iran’s nuclear program.

The omission, reported by the Los Angeles Times, has raised fears within the Trump administration that Khamenei may be preparing to abandon his father’s long-held position against developing nuclear weapons. The late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had, since 2003, issued a religious edict – a fatwa – declaring nuclear weapons forbidden under Islam, a strategy of remaining at the threshold of development without actually building a bomb. That doctrine is now in question, particularly given the personal toll the recent attacks have taken on the new leader, who reportedly lost his mother and a son in the strike that killed his father.

A Hardline Shift and the Strait of Hormuz

Khamenei’s close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has historically advocated for weaponization, are fueling these anxieties. As CBS News reported, the statement was delivered via Iranian state media, with a still image accompanying the broadcast, but no audio or video of Khamenei himself. This lack of a personal appearance has contributed to speculation about his condition following the attack, with some reports suggesting he was lightly injured. Regardless, his directive to continue blocking the Strait of Hormuz – a vital global oil shipping channel – signals an escalation of tensions.

The move to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz isn’t new. As the BBC notes, Khamenei’s statement explicitly called for continued use of this tactic as a means of pressuring the U.S. And Israel. This echoes previous Iranian threats to disrupt shipping in the region, particularly in response to sanctions or military action. The potential economic consequences are significant, as the Strait of Hormuz handles approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply. Brent crude oil prices have already surged, crossing $100 per barrel – a 50% increase from a month ago – as tankers avoid the area, according to the New York Post.

The Nuclear Question: A Stubborn Mystery

The core concern, however, remains Iran’s nuclear ambitions. U.S. Intelligence has long assessed that the late Ayatollah Khamenei pursued a strategy of near-threshold capability, avoiding the risks and costs of actually building a weapon. But Mojtaba Khamenei’s position on the issue is largely unknown. Patrick Clawson, director of the Iran program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Los Angeles Times that reports suggesting opposition to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the nuclear deal brokered during the Obama administration – are unsubstantiated. “While Mojtaba often advised his father on domestic issues, there is much less information about his position on foreign affairs, other than opposition to Israel,” Clawson said.

This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that Iran still possesses a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium – close to weapons grade – and advanced centrifuges capable of further enrichment. Eric Brewer, deputy vice president of the nuclear materials security program at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, warned that even if President Trump declares a swift end to the conflict, the fact remains that a more hardline regime is in place with the key ingredients for a nuclear weapon. “What’s the plan for day after,” Brewer added, “as Iran starts to build back, and potentially seeks nuclear weapons?”

Trump’s Dilemma: Ending the War vs. Nuclear Proliferation

President Trump has expressed a desire to end the war “very soon,” but faces a difficult dilemma. Defense officials are skeptical that Iran’s nuclear program can be fully dismantled without a substantial U.S. Ground force deployment – an escalation Trump has sought to avoid. However, ending the war with Iran’s nuclear infrastructure partially intact carries significant risks. The U.S.-Israeli campaign could, in fact, push the new Iranian leader to conclude that regime survival necessitates a nuclear deterrent.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Khamenei to disavow continued nuclear work in a recent exchange with reporters, stating he would be “wise to heed the words of our president.” However, the lack of a clear statement from Khamenei, coupled with his known alignment with the IRGC, suggests a potentially more aggressive path forward.

Escalation and Regional Implications

Beyond the nuclear question, Khamenei’s statement also included a warning to neighboring Gulf states hosting U.S. Bases, threatening continued attacks. Iran has already attacked at least seven ships in the Persian Gulf since Wednesday, with the IRGC claiming responsibility for the most damaging attacks, as reported by the New York Post. These attacks, coupled with the threat to regional allies, raise the specter of a wider conflict.

The situation is further complicated by the recent unveiling of an underground “missile city” by the Iranian military, filled with suicide drones, sea mines, and anti-ship missiles. This display of military capability serves as a clear signal of Iran’s resolve and its willingness to escalate the conflict.

What Comes Next?

The immediate future hinges on Khamenei’s next move. While a definitive statement on the nuclear program remains elusive, the White House is closely monitoring Iran’s actions. The U.S. Military is preparing for potential naval escorts of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, expected to be in place by April, though many tankers are currently avoiding the region altogether. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the conflict can be de-escalated or if it will spiral into a wider regional war, potentially with a nuclear dimension.