Why Iran Can't Have the Bomb?
Embedded Files
Unequal Nuclear Order: Iran, a signatory to the NPT, is barred from developing nuclear weapons while non-signatories like Israel, India, and Pakistan possess them freely, exposing the unequal enforcement of global nuclear norms.
Post-1979 Distrust: Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution and its anti-Western, anti-Israel ideology transformed it from a nuclear ally of the West into a perceived existential threat, especially to Israel.
Strategic Israeli Opposition: Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a direct threat to its survival and has adopted a proactive doctrine, sabotaging Iran’s nuclear progress through covert and military means.
U.S.-Iran Confrontation Escalates: The recent American strike inside Iran marks a dangerous escalation, pushing the conflict beyond sanctions and rhetoric into direct military engagement.
Turning Point for Iran: With diplomacy faltering and deterrence failing, Iran may reassess its long-standing restraint on nuclear weapons, potentially pushing the region toward a nuclear arms race or wider conflict.
For more read the full article .....
Tags: Iran Nuclear, Middle East, Global Security, NPT Treaty, Israel Tensions
Independent, fact-checked journalism URGENTLY needs your support. Please consider SUPPORTING the EXPERTX today.
JUNE 2025
The ghost of a nuclear-armed Iran has haunted international diplomacy for over four decades.
While the Islamic Republic maintains that its nuclear programme is strictly peaceful, the United States, Israel, and their allies remain deeply sceptical.
The recent U.S. military strike on Iranian installations, an unprecedented escalation, has reignited anxieties of a wider conflagration in the Middle East.
At the core of the crisis lies a fundamental contradiction:
Why is Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), denied the nuclear capabilities that other nations possess, some of them outside the treaty itself, like Israel?
Is a Global Nuclear Order Built on Inequality?
Signed in 1968 and ratified by 191 countries, including Iran, the NPT created a world of nuclear haves and have-nots.
It permitted only five countries, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China, to retain nuclear weapons, while obliging all other signatories to forgo such ambitions.
Iran, which ratified the treaty in 1970, has stayed within its legal bounds, repeatedly asserting that its nuclear energy programme remains civilian in nature.
“
Is a Global Nuclear Order Built on Inequality?
However, countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel, none of which signed the NPT, possess nuclear arsenals and face minimal pressure to disarm.
North Korea, having withdrawn from the treaty, developed nuclear weapons and still remains a de facto nuclear state.
Iranian officials often point to this hypocrisy. “We followed the rules,” they argue, “yet we are punished more than those who ignored them.”
The Post-1979 Paradigm Shift had harmed Iran's ambitions.
The current distrust towards Iran stems not from its technological capability, but from its revolutionary ideology.
Before 1979, Iran under the Shah was a Western ally, and its nuclear ambitions were even supported by the United States.
That changed dramatically with the Islamic Revolution, which brought to power a theocratic regime with a hostile posture towards both Washington and Tel Aviv.
Since then, Iran’s leadership has refused to recognise Israel’s statehood, referred to it as the “Zionist entity,” and backed militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Public statements from Iran’s top leaders have often called for the destruction of Israel. Military parades in Tehran have displayed missiles bearing inscriptions such as “Israel must be wiped out.”
For Israel, such rhetoric, combined with nuclear capability, constitutes not a strategic threat, but an existential one.
Israel’s Zero-Tolerance Security Doctrine is leading the aggression against Iran.
Israel, widely believed to possess nuclear weapons though it maintains a policy of ambiguity, sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions through a lens of survival.
A state that has faced wars on multiple fronts since its founding, Israel adheres to a doctrine of pre-emption over deterrence.
This has translated into a long-standing campaign to obstruct Iran’s nuclear development, through cyber sabotage (notably the Stuxnet attack), assassinations of nuclear scientists, and suspected airstrikes on Iranian installations.
To Tel Aviv, allowing a country that openly threatens its existence to acquire nuclear capability is a line that cannot be crossed.
Iran’s Strategic Restraint, and Its Limits
Interestingly, Iran has not formally crossed the threshold into nuclear armament, though it has the technical expertise to do so.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has, in fact, issued a fatwa declaring nuclear weapons haram (forbidden) under Islamic law.
But strategic considerations are just as important. Acquiring the bomb could trigger:
Multilateral sanctions against Iran
Military attacks from Israel and the U.S.
Diplomatic isolation
Yet, with repeated provocations and sanctions, voices within Iran’s establishment may begin to question whether restraint has paid off.
Some analysts argue that Khamenei may one day regret not building a nuclear deterrent while he had the strategic cover to do so.
Iran would meet the same fate as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi, while North Korea remains untouched by the threats of air strikes.
The Red Line Crossed: U.S. Strike on Iran
The decades-long cold war between the U.S. and Iran moved into dangerous new territory with a recent American military strike on Iranian soil.
“
...Israel adheres to a doctrine of pre-emption over deterrence
This was not a proxy clash or a cyber operation, it was a direct kinetic action that shattered a long-standing red line.
Iran has vowed retaliation. Possible scenarios of retaliation include:
Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, or the Gulf
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil flows
Proxy warfare, using Hezbollah or other regional militias
Sabotage of oil infrastructure in countries allied with the U.S.
However, each of these options risks further escalation. Direct attacks could justify overwhelming U.S. retaliation.
Shutting down oil routes could unite global powers against Tehran. Even proxy attacks could invite blowback.
The Trump Doctrine: Pressure Without Coherence
Under Donald Trump’s presidency, U.S. policy toward Iran swung between aggressive posturing and vague offers of diplomacy.
Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a landmark agreement that had placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.
His administration instead pursued “maximum pressure”, a mix of economic sanctions, targeted killings (such as that of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani), and tightening of regional alliances.
While the White House hinted at a willingness to strike a new deal, the lack of a clear strategy and mounting military confrontations have closed that window for now.
Iranian-backed attacks and plots have even surfaced on U.S. territories, raising fears of asymmetric retaliation.
There is a crumbling balance in the region.
Veteran observers now believe this may be the moment when U.S.-Iran tensions pass the point of no return. Supreme Leader Khamenei, long known for cautious statecraft, may find himself boxed in.
Doing too little may erode his legitimacy domestically; doing too much could invite war.
The EXPERTX Analysis coverage is funded by people like you.
Will you help our independent journalism FREE to all? SUPPORT US
In this climate, the temptation to accelerate Iran’s nuclear programme may grow stronger than ever.
If compliance only leads to isolation and vulnerability, Tehran may conclude that only nuclear deterrence can guarantee regime survival, a logic reminiscent of Cold War-era brinkmanship.
Why is history repeating itself ?
Some draw parallels with the Iraq War of 2003, which was based on flawed intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.
The Israeli PM, Netanyahu, in different capacities have been raising alarm about Iran's nuclear capabilities, since 1990s.
But the Iran case is distinct.
Unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran has a sophisticated state apparatus, institutionalised government departments, widespread regional alliances, and significant domestic support.
What worries analysts is the speed of recent escalations.
Only days before the U.S. strike, European officials were distancing themselves from Israeli activity in Iran.
The sudden shift to direct involvement has unsettled European allies like Britain, France and Germany, 'E3' who fear a repeat of past Iraqi miscalculations.
Two trajectories appear possible:
A full-scale Israeli-American effort to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, an outcome that is militarily uncertain and diplomatically costly.
Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT and open pursuit of nuclear weapons, a path that could spark a broader arms race in the Middle East.
“
What worries analysts is the speed of recent escalations
It's A Crisis of Distrust
At its core, the Iran nuclear crisis is not merely a technical dispute over centrifuges and uranium enrichment. It is a clash of narratives, of existential fears, historical grievances, and geopolitical power plays.
The West fears a nuclear Iran emboldened by revolutionary ideology and proxy networks.
Iran sees a hypocritical international order where the rules are unevenly applied and where restraint yields no reward.
Unless there emerges a credible, enforceable, and mutually respectful diplomatic framework, this impasse will only deepen.
The longer it lasts, the higher the risk of miscalculation, and the closer the region edges toward a nuclear flashpoint.
The EXPERTX Analysis coverage is funded by people like you.
Will you help our independent journalism FREE to all? SUPPORT US
To Comment: connect@expertx.org
Support Us - It's advertisement free journalism, unbiased, providing high quality researched contents.
Google Sites
Report abuse