Concerns Over Iran’s Chemical Weapons Program

A recent report from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has highlighted worries about Iran’s secretive chemical weapons efforts. Notably, this program has not received the level of scrutiny that Iran’s nuclear weapons initiative has.

The report details how, during an unprecedented uprising that began in December 2025—marked by violence unseen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution—the Iranian government turned to unconventional chemical weapons. Such actions would breach its commitments under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.

Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the FDD Nonproliferation Program, pointed out that the United States and its allies, including the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), need to investigate credible reports of the Iranian regime using chemical weapons against its own populace.

The focus on Iran’s illegal chemical capabilities has intensified, especially as tensions rise and the Trump administration seems poised to act militarily against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. During indirect discussions with Iranian officials in Geneva, mediated by Oman, the U.S. has bolstered its military presence in the Persian Gulf by deploying the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and multiple warships.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi emphasized on X that the country intends to resume discussions in Geneva, aiming for a fair agreement quickly. He asserted that while Iran has no plans to pursue nuclear weapons, it will maintain its right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials have reportedly cautioned that the threat from Iranian ballistic missiles could prompt unilateral military actions against Tehran.

In light of ongoing diplomatic efforts, there remain underlying fears that Iran may not offer substantial concessions regarding its nuclear program, which could provoke a military response from the U.S.

Some discussions even suggest a larger movement to challenge the Iranian regime could be considered. Stricker advised that if military action is taken, targeting Iran’s chemical weapons production sites could deter further development and misuse, delivering a strong message against atrocities.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is clear: member states, including Iran, are prohibited from developing or using such weapons, even defensively, and cannot transfer them to other nations.

During a special meeting of the OPCW in July 2025, Israel’s deputy ambassador, Yaron Wax, mentioned that Iran has been developing a chemical weapons program based on weaponized pharmaceuticals over the last two decades. This could have severe implications, as these agents can be deadly even in small quantities.

There have been allegations that Iran has assisted groups in Syria and Iraq with these types of weapons. Historical context reveals that Iran began its chemical weapons program in 1983 amid the war with Iraq, in reaction to chemical assaults by Saddam Hussein’s forces.

Reports indicate that as recently as 2024, the U.S. found that Iran remained noncompliant with its CWC obligations. The Iranian mission to the U.N. has defended its position, stating that Iran, having faced chemical weapon attacks itself, is committed to the CWC, claiming there have been no recorded violations on its part.

Stricker argues that the international community’s inaction towards Iran’s chemical program is concerning, urging meaningful steps to prevent Iran from distributing banned materials to proxy groups.

The FDD report calls for the U.S. and OPCW to pressure Iran, publicizing violations and demanding compliance with the treaty. It also suggests that Israel ratifying the CWC could enhance its legitimacy in addressing Iranian infractions.

In extreme circumstances, the U.S. might need to consider military strikes on Iran’s chemical sites or back Israeli actions if credible intelligence indicates movement on Iran’s chemical initiatives or attempts to repress protests with such weapons.

Ultimately, Stricker posited that effectively addressing Iran’s threats of mass destruction means diminishing the regime’s power. Without that, the U.S. and Israel will continue to face periodic challenges from Iran’s capabilities that threaten regional stability.