By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The recent U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran demonstrate a stark lesson: possessing nuclear weapons offers protection from U.S. attack, while lacking them results in vulnerability. The decision to strike Iran, seemingly without sound justification and in violation of a prior nuclear agreement, suggests a strategy that incentivizes nuclear proliferation. This undermines decades of U.S. efforts to build a global system that has largely succeeded in preventing the widespread spread of nuclear weapons, threatening both American and global security for generations.
Read the original article here
President Trump’s recent military actions against Iran, characterized by some as an unjustified war, carry profound and dangerous implications for global security. The swift escalation, bypassing traditional congressional declarations of war, signals a disturbing trend of unilateral action and disregard for established international norms. This move appears to be driven by a flawed premise, overlooking the very real consequences of such aggression on nations seeking to protect themselves. The clear, albeit grim, lesson emerging from these events is that possessing nuclear weapons offers a shield against potential U.S. military intervention. Conversely, nations without them are left vulnerable. This stark reality is unlikely to be lost on countries that are not allied with the United States or that have experienced the U.S. abandoning long-standing alliances and agreements, such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran.
The withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, a multilateral agreement that provided a framework for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program, marked a significant turning point. This action, taken with what appears to be a lack of sound legal or military justification, dismantled existing guardrails and made escalation far easier. The subsequent decision to launch military strikes with the aim of regime change further solidifies the perception that might, rather than international law or diplomacy, dictates policy. This has been a recurring pattern, as seen with Iraq’s decision to forgo nuclear weapons development and subsequent invasion, or Libya’s disarmament followed by intervention.
The implications for nuclear proliferation are significant. When nations perceive that diplomatic channels and security guarantees are unreliable and that military intervention by powerful states is a constant threat, the development of nuclear weapons becomes an increasingly attractive option for self-preservation. The argument that nuclear deterrence is the ultimate guarantor of national sovereignty has gained traction for decades, and recent events only serve to reinforce this belief. The failure to deter Russia’s actions in Ukraine, particularly after Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances, underscores the fragility of non-nuclear states in the face of aggression from nuclear-armed adversaries.
This new paradigm directly challenges the established non-proliferation efforts. While the number of nuclear-armed states has remained relatively stable, the current geopolitical climate, exacerbated by perceived U.S. unpredictability, is likely to accelerate the desire for nuclear capabilities. Countries that were previously hesitant may now feel compelled to pursue these weapons as the only reliable means of deterring aggression from major powers, including the United States itself. The idea that the U.S. is a dependable ally has been severely undermined, leading to questions about the value of its security guarantees for nations like Canada and Mexico, and particularly for U.S. allies like Japan and South Korea.
The argument that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence, and not necessarily for use, holds a certain logic from the perspective of a nation seeking security. However, the proliferation of such weapons inherently increases the risk of their use, whether through miscalculation, escalation, or deliberate action. The environmental consequences of developing and disposing of nuclear weapons are also a significant concern for the planet as a whole. The current administration’s approach appears to be fostering an environment where this dangerous precedent is not only accepted but encouraged, driven by a perceived need for preemptive protection.
The notion that “if you have a nuclear weapon, you are safe from potential U.S. attack, and if you don’t have a nuclear weapon, you are vulnerable” is a stark and disturbing conclusion derived from recent events. This perspective suggests that international law is secondary to the unilateral actions of powerful nations, leaving countries with few options other than to make themselves unpalatable targets for invasion. The presence of nuclear weapons acts as a powerful deterrent, preventing direct conflict between nuclear-armed states, as evidenced by the current situation in Ukraine where Russia’s nuclear arsenal has, for now, deterred direct NATO intervention.
Ultimately, the policy choices made by the current administration, particularly the perceived disregard for established international agreements and the use of military force without clear congressional approval, have created a more dangerous world. The acceleration of a downhill trajectory in global stability is palpable. While the Iranian regime’s actions are certainly subject to criticism, the methods employed and the resulting global implications are deeply concerning. The focus has shifted from de-escalation and diplomacy to a dangerous arms race, where the possession of nuclear weapons is seen as the ultimate guarantee of national sovereignty and security in an increasingly unpredictable international landscape. This self-inflicted wound to global security, driven by a flawed understanding of deterrence and a willingness to abandon established frameworks, is a dangerous precedent that will likely resonate for generations to come.