Israeli intelligence warnings, American assessments of Iran’s chemical weapons research and new evidence from bombed Iranian facilities raise serious questions about whether Tehran could resort to chemical warfare in another confrontation with Israel.
By Hezy Laing
Israel has shared intelligence with the United States and Gulf countries warning that Iran may be considering chemical attacks against its adversaries. The allegations, reported by The New York Times on November 3, 2026, have prompted serious questions about whether Tehran might turn to unconventional weapons if its regime faces an existential threat.
The intelligence has not been universally accepted. Some American and Gulf officials reportedly questioned the evidence and suggested that Israel was using the warnings to encourage renewed American military action against Iran.
Nevertheless, the possibility deserves serious attention. Iran has a documented history of chemical weapons development, and American intelligence assessments have repeatedly raised concerns that its efforts did not end with the Iran-Iraq War.
There is no publicly verified evidence establishing the size of any current Iranian chemical weapons stockpile or proving that Tehran has decided to use such weapons. But the available record gives Israel little reason to dismiss the danger.
Iran’s chemical weapons history
Iran’s chemical weapons program emerged during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam Hussein’s forces repeatedly attacked Iranian troops with poison gas, killing and injuring thousands.
According to American intelligence assessments, Iran began developing its own offensive chemical weapons program in 1983. By 1987, it had acquired the ability to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi forces.
The program did not simply disappear when the war ended. In December 2006, the US intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained a small, covert chemical weapons stockpile, while a 2007 assessment said it retained the ability to produce chemical agents and weaponize them.
Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in November 1997, committing itself to abandoning chemical weapons. However, Washington has continued to question whether Tehran fully declared its historical activities and facilities.
Washington’s disturbing findings
Some of the most significant recent American allegations concern pharmaceutical-based agents: substances originally developed for legitimate medical purposes that can become chemical weapons when deliberately developed or used to poison, incapacitate or kill people.
One example is medetomidine, a powerful sedative used in medical and veterinary settings. American officials have raised concerns about Iranian research into weaponizing the substance, including documents published online in September 2023 that purported to describe ways of turning it into an incapacitating agent.
In a March 2024 statement to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the United States said it assessed that Iran maintained a chemical weapons program and had developed and filled weapons with pharmaceutical-based agents after joining the convention.
In July 2024, the US State Department imposed sanctions on Hakiman Shargh Research Company, accusing it of involvement in Iran’s chemical weapons research and development.
The concerns continued into 2025. The US Intelligence Community’s annual threat assessment said Iran very likely intended to continue research and development of chemical and biological agents for offensive purposes, including substances capable of causing sedation and other incapacitating effects.
These are American intelligence assessments and government allegations, not findings of an independent OPCW investigation. Nevertheless, they represent a serious warning about the direction of Iran’s research.
A research center hit repeatedly
One facility that has attracted particular attention is the Shahid Meisami Research Complex, west of Tehran, which Israel struck during its June 2025 military campaign against Iran.
Israel identified the complex as part of Iran’s chemical and biological weapons research infrastructure, although it was also associated with other sensitive military research.
The facility came under attack again in March 2026. Satellite imagery analyzed by the Institute for Science and International Security showed that a second attack destroyed what researchers identified as a probable chemical production facility.
The repeated strikes demonstrate the site’s military significance, but they do not establish exactly what chemicals were produced there or how much of Iran’s research capacity survived.
Could a cornered regime use chemical weapons?
The November intelligence warning raises a question Israel cannot afford to ignore: what might Tehran do if its leaders believe the regime itself is in danger?
A government facing the prospect of defeat or collapse may calculate that unconventional weapons offer a way to inflict casualties, spread panic and increase the political cost of continued military action.
Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish civilians is a reminder that international condemnation does not always deter regimes from crossing established boundaries.
There are also different ways a chemical attack could occur. The Israeli intelligence reported by The New York Times raised concerns about possible missile delivery and the covert introduction of chemical agents into enemy countries, although neither capability has been publicly demonstrated as an Iranian operational capability.
Iran may have suffered significant damage to its military infrastructure, but that does not automatically mean every chemical weapons capability has been eliminated.
Iran’s chemical weapons history, its alleged pharmaceutical-based weapons research and continuing American intelligence concerns all point to a threat that deserves serious attention.
Israel does not need to assume that Tehran has an operational chemical arsenal or that an attack is imminent. But if a regime facing the possibility of defeat has retained even part of its former capabilities, dismissing the danger could prove a costly mistake.
