The US-Israel
military campaign against Iran is not just another regional war. It is a
profound setback to the slow, fragile progress toward a world with fewer
nuclear weapons.
By Fareed Khan
A version of this can be found on Substack.
A version of this can be found on Substack.
On February
28th the United States and Israel launched a coordinated and unprovoked
military assault on Iran. This unprecedented aggression targeted Iran's nuclear
facilities, ballistic missile sites, military command structures, as well as
targets in Iran's major urban centres. The
strikes were intended to destroy what remained of Tehran's nuclear program
after a previous round of strikes in June 2025, which US President Donald Trump
claimed at the time "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's key
nuclear enrichment facilities.
He framed the operation this week as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but provided no proof that Iran was anywhere near completing a nuclear warhead. However, the repercussions of the attack are far more damaging. By attacking a non-nuclear state amid ongoing diplomatic talks, the US and Israel have not only done serious damage to the Iranian regime but also dealt a severe blow to global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This act of aggression sends a chilling message to smaller nations that the only reliable deterrence against powerful bullies like the US and Israel is to acquire nuclear weapons of your own.
The assault on Iran underscores a harsh truth about international power dynamics. For decades, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been the main tool used by the international community to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, with nuclear-armed states like the US promising security in exchange for others' restraint. But the attack on Iran flips this logic on its head. Iran, a signatory to the NPT, had been negotiating limits on its nuclear activities when the bombs fell. Diplomacy was abandoned in favor of force, proving that even compliance offers no protection from pre-emptive strikes. As experts have noted, this incentivizes proliferation, with other nations with the capability now looking to develop nuclear programs as a deterrent before they themselves are attacked and their governments overthrown. Smaller nations, witnessing Iran's fate, will conclude that nuclear weapons are essential for survival against hegemonic powers like the US, China and Russia.
Consider Ukraine, a stark example of the perils of denuclearization. In 1994, Ukraine inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal from the Soviet Union but relinquished it under the Budapest Memorandum, receiving security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. Russia violated those assurances in 2014 by annexing Crimea and again in 2022 with a full-scale invasion. Ukrainian officials have lamented the decision to denuclearize, with one MP stating, "We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement. Now, there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake." Had Ukraine retained its arsenal, Russia might never have considered invasion, deterred by the threat of nuclear escalation. Instead, denuclearization left Ukraine vulnerable, reinforcing the lesson that lack of a nuclear deterrent invites aggression.
Libya's experience echoes this tragedy. In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, including nascent nuclear efforts, in exchange for normalized relations with the West and a security guarantee. Eight years later, in 2011, NATO intervened in Libya's civil war under a UN mandate to protect civilians, but the operation expanded into regime change, leading to Gaddafi's overthrow and death. The intervention, led by the US, UK, and France, demonstrated that giving up WMDs offers no lasting security. As one analysis put it, this set a precedent for authoritarian regimes--nuclear weapons deter foreign intervention. North Korea's Kim Jong-un has cited Libya as a reason for his nation developing its nuclear arsenal, viewing it as protection against a possible attack by the US.
North Korea stands as the counterexample, proving the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. Facing US threats of regime change since the Korean War, Pyongyang pursued nukes relentlessly, conducting its first test in 2006. Today, with an estimated 50 warheads and advanced missiles, North Korea has effectively shielded itself from invasion. Analysts argue that its arsenal deters US aggression, allowing provocations like missile tests without fear of full-scale war. The US-Israel attack on Iran only bolsters the view that non-nuclear states are prey, while those with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them are predators.
Israel's role in this hypocrisy cannot be ignored. It possesses an undeclared nuclear arsenal of an estimated 90 to possibly more than 200 warheads, and refuses to sign the NPT or allow IAEA inspectors into its nuclear facilities. Its policy of "nuclear opacity" undermines global non-proliferation efforts, as it demanded that Iran disarm while maintaining its own nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Since the 1980s, Israel has threatened Iran, viewing its support for Palestinian rights as a threat, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly claiming that Iran was weeks away from a nuclear bomb—assertions dating back to the 1990s that have never materialized. He made similar false claims about Iraq's WMD in 2002 and Libya, both strong supporters of Palestinians. Israel's history of aggression—bombing or invading every neighbor since 1948, including recent strikes on Yemen, Qatar, and now Iran—fuels regional instability. This belligerence, backed by undeclared nukes, drives others to seek deterrence, thereby undermining non-proliferation efforts.
The fallout from the Iran attacks last summer is already evident. In September 2025, Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defense pact with Pakistan, placing the kingdom under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella. Officials hinted that "all military means," including nukes, are encompassed. This deal, a response to perceived threats from Israel after the June 2025 attacks on Iran, shows how attacks on non-nuclear states by those with nuclear arms accelerates proliferation. Saudi Arabia, fearing similar strikes, has secured nuclear protection without developing its own arsenal, bypassing the NPT. Now, given the most recent aggression by the US and Israel, more nations may follow, eroding the global regime.
Why does the West accept this double standard? Canada, for instance, opposes rogue nuclear states but overlooks Israel's illegal arsenal, and does little beyond PR statements and political platitudes in response to repeated military aggression by the Zionist state against neighbouring nations. The US, the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war, lectures others while enabling Israel's opacity.
Russia and China acquired nukes after World War 2 fearing US dominance. The UK and France followed suit due to Cold War threats from the Soviet Union. North Korea's program stems from fears of a US invasion. The only way to understand this mentality on a personal levels is to consider if a neighbor threatens you with guns and authorities fail to protect, then you would most likely arm yourself. Under the seeming lawlessness that the world is witnessing with the attack on Iran it wouldn't be surprising if nations behaved similarly.
The attack on Iran will accelerate this cycle. Experts warn, it incentivizes proliferation and makes adversaries hesitant to participate in good faith diplomacy with the United States lest they experience the same fate as the Iranians. Iran, battered but surviving, may redouble secret efforts, and others, like Saudi Arabia, will seek alliances with nuclear states. Weaker nations with resources will prioritize nukes for self-defence, with Iran being a prime example of what could happen to a nation that does not bow to stronger military powers.
To salvage the global non-proliferation regime, we must confront its deepest underlying cause--the stark power imbalance between nuclear-armed states and those without them. A genuine commitment to nuclear disarmament requires universal action—dismantling all arsenals, including Israel's undeclared one—and bringing an end to hegemonic aggression that fuels insecurity worldwide.
The NPT rests on three inseparable pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. True adherence demands that nuclear-weapon states fulfill their Article VI obligations by leading through example, rather than perpetuating a system where they retain monopoly power while demanding restraint from others. As long as the nuclear powers modernize and expand their arsenals instead of disarming, non-nuclear states will view nuclear weapons as the ultimate equalizer—the only credible guarantee of survival in a world where might dictates right.
The ongoing US-Israel military campaign against Iran is far more than another regional war. It is a profound setback to the slow, fragile progress toward a safer world—one with fewer nuclear weapons and stronger diplomatic norms. By choosing pre-emptive force over negotiation at a moment when talks had shown promise, this assault risks shattering the NPT's credibility entirely, accelerating proliferation pressures, and closing the door on the very diplomacy needed to prevent a cascade of new nuclear states.
The path forward is clear. Nuclear powers must finally honor their disarmament commitments, or the treaty they claim to defend will collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy. Only then can we hope to build genuine security—not through endless cycles of dominance and retaliation, but through shared vulnerability and mutual restraint. The alternative is a more dangerous world for everyone.
© The View From Here. © Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
He framed the operation this week as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but provided no proof that Iran was anywhere near completing a nuclear warhead. However, the repercussions of the attack are far more damaging. By attacking a non-nuclear state amid ongoing diplomatic talks, the US and Israel have not only done serious damage to the Iranian regime but also dealt a severe blow to global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This act of aggression sends a chilling message to smaller nations that the only reliable deterrence against powerful bullies like the US and Israel is to acquire nuclear weapons of your own.
The assault on Iran underscores a harsh truth about international power dynamics. For decades, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been the main tool used by the international community to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, with nuclear-armed states like the US promising security in exchange for others' restraint. But the attack on Iran flips this logic on its head. Iran, a signatory to the NPT, had been negotiating limits on its nuclear activities when the bombs fell. Diplomacy was abandoned in favor of force, proving that even compliance offers no protection from pre-emptive strikes. As experts have noted, this incentivizes proliferation, with other nations with the capability now looking to develop nuclear programs as a deterrent before they themselves are attacked and their governments overthrown. Smaller nations, witnessing Iran's fate, will conclude that nuclear weapons are essential for survival against hegemonic powers like the US, China and Russia.
Consider Ukraine, a stark example of the perils of denuclearization. In 1994, Ukraine inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal from the Soviet Union but relinquished it under the Budapest Memorandum, receiving security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. Russia violated those assurances in 2014 by annexing Crimea and again in 2022 with a full-scale invasion. Ukrainian officials have lamented the decision to denuclearize, with one MP stating, "We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement. Now, there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake." Had Ukraine retained its arsenal, Russia might never have considered invasion, deterred by the threat of nuclear escalation. Instead, denuclearization left Ukraine vulnerable, reinforcing the lesson that lack of a nuclear deterrent invites aggression.
Libya's experience echoes this tragedy. In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, including nascent nuclear efforts, in exchange for normalized relations with the West and a security guarantee. Eight years later, in 2011, NATO intervened in Libya's civil war under a UN mandate to protect civilians, but the operation expanded into regime change, leading to Gaddafi's overthrow and death. The intervention, led by the US, UK, and France, demonstrated that giving up WMDs offers no lasting security. As one analysis put it, this set a precedent for authoritarian regimes--nuclear weapons deter foreign intervention. North Korea's Kim Jong-un has cited Libya as a reason for his nation developing its nuclear arsenal, viewing it as protection against a possible attack by the US.
North Korea stands as the counterexample, proving the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. Facing US threats of regime change since the Korean War, Pyongyang pursued nukes relentlessly, conducting its first test in 2006. Today, with an estimated 50 warheads and advanced missiles, North Korea has effectively shielded itself from invasion. Analysts argue that its arsenal deters US aggression, allowing provocations like missile tests without fear of full-scale war. The US-Israel attack on Iran only bolsters the view that non-nuclear states are prey, while those with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them are predators.
Israel's role in this hypocrisy cannot be ignored. It possesses an undeclared nuclear arsenal of an estimated 90 to possibly more than 200 warheads, and refuses to sign the NPT or allow IAEA inspectors into its nuclear facilities. Its policy of "nuclear opacity" undermines global non-proliferation efforts, as it demanded that Iran disarm while maintaining its own nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Since the 1980s, Israel has threatened Iran, viewing its support for Palestinian rights as a threat, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly claiming that Iran was weeks away from a nuclear bomb—assertions dating back to the 1990s that have never materialized. He made similar false claims about Iraq's WMD in 2002 and Libya, both strong supporters of Palestinians. Israel's history of aggression—bombing or invading every neighbor since 1948, including recent strikes on Yemen, Qatar, and now Iran—fuels regional instability. This belligerence, backed by undeclared nukes, drives others to seek deterrence, thereby undermining non-proliferation efforts.
The fallout from the Iran attacks last summer is already evident. In September 2025, Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defense pact with Pakistan, placing the kingdom under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella. Officials hinted that "all military means," including nukes, are encompassed. This deal, a response to perceived threats from Israel after the June 2025 attacks on Iran, shows how attacks on non-nuclear states by those with nuclear arms accelerates proliferation. Saudi Arabia, fearing similar strikes, has secured nuclear protection without developing its own arsenal, bypassing the NPT. Now, given the most recent aggression by the US and Israel, more nations may follow, eroding the global regime.
Why does the West accept this double standard? Canada, for instance, opposes rogue nuclear states but overlooks Israel's illegal arsenal, and does little beyond PR statements and political platitudes in response to repeated military aggression by the Zionist state against neighbouring nations. The US, the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war, lectures others while enabling Israel's opacity.
Russia and China acquired nukes after World War 2 fearing US dominance. The UK and France followed suit due to Cold War threats from the Soviet Union. North Korea's program stems from fears of a US invasion. The only way to understand this mentality on a personal levels is to consider if a neighbor threatens you with guns and authorities fail to protect, then you would most likely arm yourself. Under the seeming lawlessness that the world is witnessing with the attack on Iran it wouldn't be surprising if nations behaved similarly.
The attack on Iran will accelerate this cycle. Experts warn, it incentivizes proliferation and makes adversaries hesitant to participate in good faith diplomacy with the United States lest they experience the same fate as the Iranians. Iran, battered but surviving, may redouble secret efforts, and others, like Saudi Arabia, will seek alliances with nuclear states. Weaker nations with resources will prioritize nukes for self-defence, with Iran being a prime example of what could happen to a nation that does not bow to stronger military powers.
To salvage the global non-proliferation regime, we must confront its deepest underlying cause--the stark power imbalance between nuclear-armed states and those without them. A genuine commitment to nuclear disarmament requires universal action—dismantling all arsenals, including Israel's undeclared one—and bringing an end to hegemonic aggression that fuels insecurity worldwide.
The NPT rests on three inseparable pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. True adherence demands that nuclear-weapon states fulfill their Article VI obligations by leading through example, rather than perpetuating a system where they retain monopoly power while demanding restraint from others. As long as the nuclear powers modernize and expand their arsenals instead of disarming, non-nuclear states will view nuclear weapons as the ultimate equalizer—the only credible guarantee of survival in a world where might dictates right.
The ongoing US-Israel military campaign against Iran is far more than another regional war. It is a profound setback to the slow, fragile progress toward a safer world—one with fewer nuclear weapons and stronger diplomatic norms. By choosing pre-emptive force over negotiation at a moment when talks had shown promise, this assault risks shattering the NPT's credibility entirely, accelerating proliferation pressures, and closing the door on the very diplomacy needed to prevent a cascade of new nuclear states.
The path forward is clear. Nuclear powers must finally honor their disarmament commitments, or the treaty they claim to defend will collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy. Only then can we hope to build genuine security—not through endless cycles of dominance and retaliation, but through shared vulnerability and mutual restraint. The alternative is a more dangerous world for everyone.
© The View From Here. © Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
%2B--%2B(Japan)%2BHiroshima%2Band%2BNagasaki%2C%2B69%2BYears%2BLater-Aug%2B6%2B2014.jpg){kind=spacer}