Israel’s Iran strikes might supercharge the global nuclear arms race

The recent Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military assets, coupled with Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes, have significantly escalated an already tense regional rivalry. There are serious concerns among experts that this direct military confrontation could indeed supercharge the global nuclear arms race, particularly in the Middle East.

Here’s a breakdown of why this is a significant concern:

1. Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions and Strategic Calculus:

Incentive to Weaponize: A key fear is that these strikes will harden Iran’s resolve to acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran perceives its conventional defenses as insufficient to deter Israeli attacks, and its nuclear facilities are repeatedly targeted, it might conclude that possessing a nuclear deterrent is essential for its regime’s survival. Some analyses suggest that Iran’s leadership may view the strikes as an “existential threat.”
Withdrawal from NPT: Reports indicate that Iranian parliamentarians are drafting a bill to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While Iran has consistently denied pursuing nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the NPT, such a withdrawal would remove international oversight by the IAEA and signal a clear intent to pursue a nuclear weapon.
Threshold State: Even before these strikes, Iran was considered a “nuclear threshold state,” meaning it possessed the technical capabilities and enriched uranium to quickly produce enough fissile material for several nuclear weapons if it made the political decision to do so. The strikes may have set back their program in the short term, but experts note that deep underground facilities like Fordow are difficult to destroy without more powerful munitions, and Iran retains significant nuclear expertise.

2. Regional Proliferation Cascade:

Domino Effect: If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it’s highly likely that other regional powers, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and potentially Turkey, would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear capabilities to balance power and ensure their security. This “domino effect” could lead to a highly unstable and dangerous nuclearized Middle East.
Israel’s Undeclared Arsenal: Israel is widely believed to possess its own undeclared nuclear arsenal and has not signed the NPT. This perceived double standard, where Israel maintains a nuclear monopoly in the region while actively working to prevent others from acquiring such weapons, fuels resentment and further incentivizes proliferation.

3. Weakening of Non-Proliferation Norms:

Precedent of Preemptive Strikes: Israel’s actions, even if justified by them as self-defense against a nuclear threat, set a dangerous precedent for preemptive military strikes against a state’s nuclear program. This could encourage other nations to take similar unilateral actions, further undermining international non-proliferation efforts.
IAEA Challenges: The IAEA has faced significant challenges in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program, with Iran at times restricting access and flouting agreements. The current escalation only compounds these challenges, making it harder for the international community to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s activities.
Counterarguments and Mitigating Factors:

Deterrence: Some argue that Israel’s strikes, by demonstrating its capability and resolve to prevent a nuclear Iran, might actually deter Iran from making the final leap to weaponization, at least in the immediate term.
International Pressure: The international community, including the United States, is likely to increase diplomatic pressure and potentially sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
Technical Challenges: Even if Iran decides to weaponize, the process of developing a fully functional, deliverable nuclear weapon is complex and takes time, offering a window for international intervention.
In conclusion, while the immediate impact of Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear program is debated (whether it delays or accelerates it), the broader consensus is that this direct confrontation significantly increases the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It has heightened the urgency of a highly volatile situation and could push Iran further down the path of nuclear weapon development, with potentially catastrophic consequences for regional and global security.