The decision to pursue nuclear weapons is seldom the result of a single, clear-cut motive. Rather, it emerges from a complex interplay of security anxieties, domestic political pressures, aspirations for international prestige, and advancements in technology.
To truly grasp Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it is essential to view them through this broader global lens—one shaped by the experiences of other nuclear-armed nations, whose paths offer both warnings and valuable insights for Tehran’s own strategic calculations.
Security and Deterrence: The Core Justification
For most states, the primary driver for acquiring nuclear weapons is security—specifically, the desire for deterrence against existential threats. The United States and the Soviet Union pioneered nuclear arsenals during World War II and the early Cold War to ensure mutual deterrence and prevent domination by the other superpower.
The United Kingdom and France, both NATO members, developed their own nuclear forces in the 1950s and 1960s to guarantee national security and strategic autonomy, even within alliances.
China’s nuclear program emerged against the backdrop of the Sino-Soviet split and fears of American and Soviet military power. India’s nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 were justified as necessary responses to Chinese and later Pakistani nuclear capabilities.
Pakistan, in turn, cited India’s arsenal as the main reason for its own nuclear program, framing its weapons as an essential counterbalance.
North Korea presents a more recent example. Facing perceived threats from the United States and South Korea, Pyongyang developed nuclear weapons to deter foreign intervention and strengthen the regime’s grip on power. Its nuclear program has also served as a bargaining chip in international negotiations.
Also Read: Did Trump Trigger the End of Nuclear Transparency in Iran?
Prestige, Politics, and Strategic Hedging
Beyond security concerns, the pursuit of nuclear weapons is deeply intertwined with national prestige, domestic politics, and the broader international landscape. For many countries, nuclear capability serves as a powerful symbol of technological achievement and global status.
France’s development of its independent nuclear force (“force de frappe”) was as much about asserting its place on the world stage as it was about defense. Similarly, India’s nuclear program is closely linked to its aspirations for recognition as a major world power and its desire to assert independence from Western influence.
In Iran, the nuclear program has become a rallying point for national pride and political unity, framed by leaders as both a sovereign right and a symbol of resistance against foreign pressure. This narrative helps consolidate internal support and legitimize the ruling authority, making nuclear ambitions a potent tool in domestic politics.
However, these ambitions are shaped and sometimes constrained by international norms, particularly the global non-proliferation regime anchored by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The NPT, while aiming to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is often criticized as discriminatory, since it recognizes only those states that tested nuclear weapons before 1968 as legitimate nuclear powers.
This has led countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to develop nuclear arsenals outside the treaty, arguing that the system unfairly entrenches the power of established nuclear states.
Some nations, such as Japan and Germany, have chosen to maintain “nuclear latency”—possessing the technological capability to quickly develop nuclear weapons if needed—using their civilian nuclear programs as a strategic hedge against future threats.
Meanwhile, not all nuclear pursuits end in weaponization: South Africa developed nuclear weapons during the apartheid era but voluntarily dismantled its arsenal in the early 1990s before joining the NPT.
Libya abandoned its nascent nuclear program in 2003 under international pressure and in exchange for sanctions relief, while Argentina and Brazil, once nuclear rivals, ultimately chose to forgo weapons and embrace non-proliferation.
In sum, the drive for nuclear weapons is shaped by a nation’s quest for prestige, internal political dynamics, and the realities of the international system—each influencing whether a country chooses to build, maintain, or abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Iran’s Unique Dilemma
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are shaped by the same pressures seen elsewhere:
Security: Surrounded by nuclear-armed rivals and U.S. military forces, Iran sees nuclear capability as a deterrent and a guarantor of regime survival.
Prestige: The program is a source of national pride and a symbol of resistance.
Norms and Discrimination: Iranian leaders often cite the double standards of the NPT and point to Israel’s undeclared arsenal as justification.
Strategic Hedging: Iran has pursued nuclear technology while stopping short of openly building a bomb, seeking leverage without triggering full-scale conflict.
However, Iran faces unique constraints: technical challenges, the threat of international sanctions, and the risk of military action by adversaries. Its dilemma is whether the benefits of nuclear capability outweigh the costs of isolation and confrontation.
The decision by nations to pursue nuclear weapons is rarely the result of a single factor. Instead, it is a complex calculation driven by the need to deter external threats, project national power, and secure a place at the table of global decision-making.
For many states, nuclear capability serves as the ultimate security guarantee—a way to prevent invasion or coercion by more powerful adversaries. At the same time, possessing nuclear weapons is often seen as a symbol of modernity and prestige, elevating a country’s status both regionally and internationally.
The Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 13, supported by the US, highlighted the serious concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, while Israel’s own arsenal remains largely unaddressed by its allies.
Iran’s nuclear dilemma is emblematic of these broader patterns. While its situation is shaped by unique regional dynamics and historical experiences, it closely mirrors the motivations and justifications cited by other nuclear-armed states.
The choices Iran faces are not fundamentally different from those faced by other countries in similar circumstances: whether to accept the risks and costs of nuclearization for the promise of greater security and influence, or to forgo the bomb in exchange for integration and stability.
Ultimately, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the world’s response are shaped by the enduring realities of the international system, where fear, ambition, and the pursuit of security continue to drive some of the most consequential decisions in global affairs.