Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Nasser Baghaei, reiterated on 14 February that Tehran’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is inherent and cannot be stripped away. Baghaei framed the claim as a legal entitlement under the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty and insisted that political pressure would not erode that right. He also said Tehran believes its current nuclear programme has so far failed to deter potential adversaries, a line that mixes legal argument with a strategic grievance.
The Iranian president has likewise insisted that Tehran does not seek nuclear weapons and is prepared to accept inspections, but warned that Iran will not bow to what it regards as excessive or unfair demands. That formulation preserves space for negotiations while signalling clear red lines about the scope and intrusiveness of any verification regime. It echoes a long‑standing Iranian position that seeks both international legitimacy and domestic reassurance.
The declaratory diplomacy comes against continued U.S. military pressure in the region. Washington has kept warships, including the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, in the eastern Mediterranean and Gulf as a reminder of its ability to project force, and U.S. and Iranian interlocutors held indirect nuclear talks in Oman on 6 February. Tehran media report a fresh round of indirect U.S.‑Iran talks scheduled for 17 February in Geneva, to be coordinated by Oman, indicating that a diplomatic channel remains open even as tensions simmer.
The statements matter because they layer legal, strategic and diplomatic claims atop one another at a volatile moment. Under the NPT non‑nuclear‑weapon states are guaranteed the right to peaceful nuclear energy, but that right has been the subject of intense mistrust since Iran’s covert enrichment activities came to light in the 2000s. The collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, successive rounds of U.S. sanctions and Iran’s stepped‑up enrichment since 2018 have turned routine civil nuclear activity into a regional security flashpoint.
What happens next will hinge on bargaining over inspections, scope and sequencing. If indirect talks in Geneva produce a limited, verifiable package—shorter enrichment breaks, clearer IAEA access, or sanctions relief—pressure may ease. If military posturing continues or talks stall, Tehran’s insistence on unassailable peaceful‑use rights combined with its complaint about deterrence could justify further enrichment advances in Iranian domestic debates, raising the risk of miscalculation in an already tense neighbourhood.