263. Iran must be an Atomic Power to make Middle East stable 

It may look like a little ambiguous statement, but that is the fact. The danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated, and the decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis will end only when a balance of military power is restored.

Let us dive deep into this issue objectively. The United States’ robust sanctions against the Islamic Republic and the European Union’s embargo on Iranian oil created a palpable sense of crisis that still looms.

The nuclear age is nearly 70 years old. Currently, nine countries possess nuclear weapons: Russia with over 5,459 warheads, the US with more than 5,177, China with 600, the United Kingdom with 225, France with 290, India and Pakistan each with approximately 170-180, Israel with a declared 90 but suspected to have many more, and North Korea with 50 warheads. Additionally, Turkey, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium host US nuclear weapons.

According to the Federation of Atomic Scientists' 2025 Status of the World's Nuclear Forces, these countries have approximately 12,331 nuclear warheads, including more than 9,600 in active military stockpiles. 

Besides this, there are tactical nuclear weapons, often described as “smaller” or “low-yield” nuclear weapons; these warheads can have explosive yields of up to 300 kilotons, or 20 times that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. A single nuclear warhead can kill hundreds of thousands and cause severe, long-lasting humanitarian and environmental damage. For example, detonating a single nuclear weapon over New York could result in approximately 583,160 deaths.

After the attack on some nuclear facilities in Iran in June 2025, the Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “It was necessary to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival”. Again, this year after attacks on the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the assassination of leading nuclear scientists, Netanyahu said Israel had acted because “if not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months.”

It was the height of shamelessness when Israel said something like this.

Iran had categorically stated, adding it with a religious concept, that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful, and the country's doctrine is rooted in its belief in the prohibition and illegitimacy of nuclear weapons.

If I were Iran’s advisor, I would suggest that the Iranian administration pursue this and have a substantial number of warheads because it would likely be one of the most effective steps to restore stability to the Middle East. 

If the three terrorist states, such as the US, Israel, and Pakistan, can have it, then Iran has to have it. The big question that comes to the mind of a simple common man, whether he is roaming in Chicago or in Kabul, is who the hell is America or Israel to decide who can have a nuclear weapon and who cannot?

The UN should remember that all terrorist groups worldwide were initially conceived and financed by Washington. The three groups Iran is associated with—Hamas, Yemen's Houthis, and Hezbollah—were indirectly formed by the US through sanctions on Iran. To survive, Iran needs such allied forces and will continue to maintain them, especially as it observes a powerless global response to the destruction and loss of lives in Kyiv and Gaza.

In 1981, Israel conducted a bombing in Iraq to prevent any threat to its nuclear dominance. Likewise, in 2007, it targeted Syria. Israel's proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals on its own has led its opponents to look for ways to stop another attack. Iran did it by funding the above three organisations.

History indicates that a country intent on developing nuclear weapons is seldom discouraged by sanctions. For example, North Korea successfully built its arsenal despite numerous sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions. Similarly, if Iran concludes that nuclear weapons are essential for its security, sanctions are unlikely to alter its decision. The recent attack may even heighten Iran's sense of vulnerability, further motivating it.

History indicates that when a country acquires nuclear capabilities, existing nuclear powers accept this development. In practice, new nuclear states have contributed to regional and global stability by balancing military power, rather than causing instability.

Conversely, Israel's dominance in regional nuclear power has led to instability throughout the Middle East. Unlike other areas, there is no instance of a lone, unchecked nuclear state. The main cause of the current crisis is Israel's nuclear arsenal rather than Iran's ambitions. Power usually seeks balance. 

Another concern is that the Iranian regime is fundamentally irrational. However, Iranian policy is not dictated by reckless mullahs but by rational ayatollahs aiming to ensure their own survival. 

Although Iran's leaders use hateful rhetoric such as "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," they do not seem intent on self-destruction. And these slogans are the outcome of the US and Israel’s nonsensical attitude, which is very much justified. Any country in Iran’s place would have done the same.

Analysts suggest that if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, it could consider launching a first strike against Israel. They forget that Iran had not closed the Strait of Hormuz despite warnings and sanctions, and has survived for more than four decades. 

Another concern is that Iran could supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. That is unlikely as Iran would have strong reasons to keep tight control over its arsenal and would never transfer these weapons to terrorist groups, as they are unpredictable and hard to manage. 

Israel has historically been involved in conflicts, after and before gaining the nuclear bomb in the 1960s which significantly increased its threat to the Arab world. If Israel's nuclear capability did not lead to an arms race, then similarly, Iran's nuclear ambitions should not either.

Since 1991, despite high tensions and provocations, India and Pakistan have kept peace after signing a treaty not to target each other's nuclear facilities. Israel and Iran could learn from this example. 

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Israel and Iran are expected to deter each other, similar to other nuclear powers, because no major war has ever taken place between two nuclear-armed countries. 

Iran might avoid testing a nuclear weapon but must develop a breakout capability, enabling rapid construction and testing. It would not be the first nation to develop a sophisticated nuclear program without actually possessing a bomb. Japan has an extensive civilian nuclear infrastructure and could produce a nuclear weapon quickly if needed.

However, Israel is likely to persist in its attempts to undermine Iran's nuclear program via sabotage and assassination. Thus, breakout capacity alone is not enough to deter; weaponization is necessary. 

Therefore, Iran must publicly demonstrate its nuclear capability by testing a weapon. 

The United States and its allies do not have to go to great lengths to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Instead, they should remove the sanctions that negatively impact everyday Iranians, who continue to support their government despite internal conflicts. 

Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, the current crisis will certainly fade, leading to a stable Middle East.