Could the Iran War Trigger a Nuclear Arms Race?
Dr Shabir Choudhry, London, 15 April 2026.
The escalating tensions surrounding Iran have revived a fundamental and deeply troubling question in international politics: could a war involving Iran trigger a nuclear arms race, particularly in the Middle East? While the answer is not straightforward, the dynamics of deterrence, double standards, and regional insecurity suggest that such an outcome is not only possible but increasingly plausible.
Nuclear Weapons and the Logic of Deterrence
Modern history demonstrates a stark reality: countries possessing nuclear weapons are far less likely to be directly attacked. The case of North Korea is often cited as a clear example. Despite its isolation, system of government, record on human rights, rhetoric, and internal system, no one has dared to launch a military invasion—largely because it possesses nuclear weapons and delivery systems capable of retaliation, and teaching a lesson to the invaders.
Similarly, the relationship between India and Pakistan has fundamentally changed since both acquired nuclear capabilities. While the two states fought a full-scale war in 1971, which resulted in the separation of East Pakistan and the humiliating surrender of the Pakistan army. Such a scenario is far less likely today. Nuclear deterrence has imposed limits on escalation, even during serious crises.
From this perspective, nuclear weapons are not merely instruments of destruction; they are also seen as tools of survival and a tool of deterrence.
The Middle East Equation
In the Middle East, the situation is even more complex. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, although it maintains a policy of ambiguity. This has created a strategic imbalance in the region.
However, even if other countries in the region were to acquire nuclear weapons, their use would be highly constrained. Any nuclear strike against Israel would almost certainly result in catastrophic retaliation, not only devastating Israel but also causing immense destruction to neighbouring regions—including Palestinian territories and Islamic holy sites. Such an outcome would be politically, morally, and religiously unacceptable for Muslim-majority countries.
Moreover, Israel’s military doctrine—like that of the United States—is widely perceived as one that would not hesitate to use overwhelming force if its existence were threatened.
Perceptions of Double Standards
A central issue driving nuclear proliferation concerns is the perception of double standards in international politics. Nuclear weapons in the hands of some states are often described as “responsible” or “stabilising,” while the same weapons in the hands of others are labelled dangerous and unacceptable.
The President of America can attack a country that poses no threat to America, kill people and kidnap its President and take him to America. Take control of their natural resources, including oil reserves. This behaviour is condemnable because it’s an act of an ‘International Terrorist’.
If that does not explain what America, people need to understand that this ‘great’ country remains the only country to have used two nuclear weapons that completely destroyed two cities and innumerable innocent citizens who were not armed or engaged in a war.
Critics argue that despite this history, and its invasion of several countries, which resulted in death and destruction of innocent and unarmed civilians, and loot and plunder, President Trump’s threats to Iran like “the end of Iranian civilisation”, which clearly indicated the use of nukes to wipe out Iran and its nuclear arsenal, are still framed as a force for stability.
By contrast, Iran is frequently portrayed as a threat, even though it has not initiated war since the Iranian Revolution. The Iran-Iraq War, often cited in this context, began with Iraq’s invasion of Iran, making it, from Iran’s perspective, a defensive war.
This raises an important question: if nuclear weapons are justified as deterrents for some states, why are they considered inherently destabilising for others?
Power, Intervention, and Global Order
Another argument frequently raised is the asymmetry of power in global politics. The United States and its allies have, at times, intervened militarily in smaller countries, justified under various doctrines such as security, democracy promotion, or counterterrorism. Critics argue that such actions—ranging from regime change to targeted killings—are often carried out with limited accountability.
In contrast, actions by states like Iran—even within their own territorial waters—are often framed as threats to global peace. For instance, disputes over maritime security highlight contrasting narratives: actions taken by Western powers are often described as enforcing international law. In contrast, similar or lesser actions by regional powers are portrayed as destabilising.
These perceptions, whether fully accurate or not, contribute to a growing sense of injustice and insecurity among states that feel excluded from the global power structure.
Does Iran Pose a Direct Threat?
This leads to a critical question: what direct threat does Iran pose to countries such as the United States, Britain, or Europe? While concerns about regional influence, missile development, and alliances are often cited, the absence of direct military aggression against these powers complicates the narrative.
For Iran, the pursuit of advanced military capability—nuclear or otherwise—may be driven less by expansionist ambition and more by a desire to deter external threats and ensure regime survival.
The Risk of a Nuclear Arms Race
Most Western experts, who are generally concerned about the future of Israel and the Jews, promote this view that if Iran were to move closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, the consequences would likely extend beyond its borders. Regional rivals could feel compelled to follow suit, leading to a multi-state nuclear competition in an already volatile region.
Such a development, they argue, would not only increase the risk of conflict but also weaken global non-proliferation efforts. The message received by many states would be clear: nuclear capability guarantees security, while its absence invites vulnerability.
One may ask, even an ordinary Tom, Dick, and Harry knows that Israel has more than 100 nukes, so why has it not resulted in a nuclear-armed race in the region? The bitter fact is that under the ‘imperial command’ of America and allies like Britain, under different pretexts attack Muslim countries and some other weak countries which are important for their imperial, economic and strategic interests.
Conclusion
The possibility of an Iran war triggering a nuclear arms race is rooted in deeper structural issues—deterrence logic, regional rivalries, and perceived global double standards. While nuclear weapons may prevent direct wars between powerful states, they also encourage their spread by reinforcing the idea that security ultimately depends on possessing them.
Unless these underlying contradictions are addressed through fair and consistent international policies, the risk of nuclear proliferation will remain—not just in the Middle East, but across the world.
The war has also proved without a shadow of any doubt that a determined country with appropriate planning can humiliate a Superpower and a state like Israel that you will not be allowed to challenge the sovereignty of Iran in future, else face the consequences. One Iranian scholar sealed it by saying:
Iran shows that sovereignty is not a gift, but the result of military self-reliance and anti-colonialist spirit”. END.
