In the summer of 2025, at the behest of Israel, the US launched massive air strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites- Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The air strikes were a first in decades involving the US and Iran directly. The war of words followed and so did propaganda machines. The war between regional military powers Israel and Iran was unprecedented, churning a new order with serious political and security ramifications, and the US attack was a provocative escalation, further engulfing the Middle East to the point of no return. Since then, Iran has been under serious trouble including witnessing mass protests at home. Its support base in Hamas and Hezbollah was equally jitters, facing a serious onslaught from the Zionist Israeli regime. This triggered an alarming situation over Iran’s nuclear pursuit shrouded under the cloud of uncertainty both within and outside Iran.
The US and Israel want Iran to surrender its nuclear ambition on their condition; on the contrary, Iran, despite being under draconian sanctions has chosen offensive measures threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s nuclear ambition is about its existential survival, considering the hostility it receives from the US and Israel. Further, the paradoxes in Iran’s relations with the Sunni Arab regimes trivialise the regional security architecture. It is well known that despite a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Arab countries do not want Iran’s nuclear power status either for their own security dilemma that perfectly serves the US-Israel interest.
The Middle East is full of paradoxes that are churning up new realities. The old regional order is over and the emerging one is equally uncertain. The critical point, therefore, is that Iran will negotiate to buy some time to unburden itself from a multi-front war and clandestinely pursue its ambition. For Iran, its Nuclear ambition is about survival now.
Iran’s turbulent Nuclear Program & the Soviet connection
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been under siege since 1979. Despite being seen as a dominant regional power defying US-Israel hegemony in the region, it has been under sanction for over four decades. On the other hand, its relationship with the Sunni Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, is extremely complex. Since the 1979 revolution, the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been fanning deep sectarianism in the region and beyond. Saudi being the cash cow for the US’s military industrial complex, is permanently dependent for its own survival. This helps the US, and the Trumps’ first presidency resonated with these new shifts through the Abraham Accords. Although Saudi’s hasn’t normalised its relationship with Israel but it undisputedly shares a close relationship with many Sunni countries like Egypt, UAE and Jordan.
On the backdrop of this, Iran’s nuclear program has always been tactical and a guarantee for its survival. Iran has been taking cues from the ‘cold-war deterrence’ combined with the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s pursuit and Iranian leadership under Ayatollah Khomeini, who earlier issued a fatwa against the nuclear program as un-Islamic, later, as a pragmatist, permitted the resumption of the nuclear program in 1984, reviving Shah-era nuclear facilities. The background of the eight-year-long war with Iraq made Iran ambitious about its nuclear program as a choiceless strategy. These efforts were complemented by President Rafsanjani’s diplomatic overtures to Russia, China and North Korea, enabling Iran to keep its nuclear program apace in the face of tremendous international pressure.
Rafsanjani’s two-pronged strategy
Aware of the severe intellectual deficit post the revolution, Rafsanjani implemented a two-pronged strategy- encouraging the Iranian expatriates to come and settle back in Iran; sending hundreds of Iranian scientists to Russia for training in highly sophisticated Russian laboratories and nuclear institutes. These efforts laid the foundation for a highly skilled cadre of nuclear scientists at the turn of the 21st century. The dominant narrative on Iran’s nuclear policy has been largely influenced by the West’s disinformation campaign and its narrative-building overlooking the wider debate among various factions within Iranian politics. Iranians have been trying to influence their nuclear policy purely based on unfounded fears. First, it is pertinent to examine the domestic power struggle between the Pragmatists and Principalists in Iran. The Pragmatists argue that Iran does not need an explicit weapon programme but the capacity to safeguard itself from the existential threat it confronts.
Pragmatists aspire to keep the nuclear weapons options open while hedging against the heat of the global proliferation regime. This faction is represented by prominent leaders, including the current President, Masoud Pezeshkian; former Presidents, Hasan Rouhani and Rafsanjani; and the former foreign minister of Iran, Javed Zarif. Pragmatists believe that once the nuclear capabilities are achieved, Iran would certainly have the ‘deterrence’ against US-Israel hegemony as any attack on Iran will trigger the development of nuclear weapons in a short span of time. But the development of the capacity rather than the weapon itself excludes Iran from punishment under the global non-proliferation regime.
On the contrary, Principalists view the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a violation of sovereign right to acquire nuclear weapons as they realised that the global non-proliferation regime divides the world into nuclear haves and have-nots and thus argued for Iran to pursue all-out nuclear shattering the non-proliferation ceiling and let the world deal with Iran as a de-facto nuclear power.
Principalists are represented by the ‘hard-liners’ groups like Abadgaran which had close ties with Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and control key institutions like- Judiciary, Expediency Discernment Council; effectively over-riding the presidential authority.
The Clash of Regional Hegemons & Geopolitical Connection
Iran’s nuclear policy is guided by the power tussle between these two factions Pragmatists and Principalists. However, external factors have influenced Iran’s nuclear policies. Israel’s own nuclear program, its vast stockpiles and unashamedly mocking International law, including refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This forced Iran to pursue nuclear ambition as a political equaliser, maintaining a security balance. Iran’s security dilemma has never been acknowledged under the influence of the US’s unconditional support for Israel.
Furthermore, the hypocrisy of International Atomic Energy Agency, the EU and other so-called watchdogs contributed to Iran’s nuclear ambition. On the contrary, Israel always had impunity in pursuit of its nuclear program which developed during the peak of the Cold War. Ironically, Israel’s Nuclear program never faced any serious opposition which largely allowed the Zionist regime to continue its settler colonial practices and vast dehumanisation program against poor Palestinians.
It becomes obvious therefore that Iran faces not just the horrendous US pressure but arguably, it is Israel’s nuclear arsenal that puts tremendous pressure on Iran to pursue nuclear power at any cost. Israel has resorted to ‘catalytic retaliation’, wherein it catalyses nuclear response against its adversaries by a third party (USA) by threatening to use nuclear weapons by itself. According to credible sources in Washington and the Pentagon, Israel was successful in blackmailing the White House to conduct airstrikes on Iran in June 2025, by catalytic nuclear posturing. Further, Israel has consistently subverted dialogue between the USA and Iran by actively using the ‘Israel lobby’ in the US Congress or provoking Iran into armed retaliation by targeting Iranian proxies throughout Syria and Yemen. In March 2020, the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and the assassination of nine Iranian nuclear scientists in June 2025 linked to the Amad plan, reflecting Israel’s covert abilities as well as the fear of Iran’s regional standing.
The Current Rupture
The current standoff between Iran and the US amidst Trump’s open threat of another military intervention resonates the unholy connection between the US and Israel and the desire to topple the Khamenei regime in Iran. Israel’s ambition to become a regional hegemon is impossible without making Iran completely weak. Iran, by virtue of its geography, culture, and military might, dominates the regional security framework. The geopolitical rehabilitation of Iran, which was facilitated by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 (JCPOA), is the biggest threat to Israel’s security interests and to the regional influence of the Sunni monarchies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Consequently, Iran becomes the strategic glue which binds Arab monarchies like the UAE with Israel (Abraham Accords 2020).
After the Arab uprising, the US policy shifted from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. There were stated intentions to withdraw from Middle Eastern conflicts to focus its diplomatic and strategic resources on the Indo-Pacific region to undermine the rise of China. President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign might seem a pro-Israel and anti-Iran approach at the surface level but it is a strategy of demanding more concessions from Tehran. Power after all needs to be balanced. The propaganda on Iran is massive. The unwanted fear of nuclear terrorism, if Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, fails to achieve any merit. The western hypocrisy is ironic when Israel receives no attention despite having a substantial nuclear stockpile.
The realist worldview argues that having nuclear status is perhaps the only security guarantee in the anarchic world order. Iran might be intransigent at the negotiating table and defying the international sanction regime, but the desire for nuclear weapons is Tehran’s survival security. In such a Hobbesian worldview, it is pertinent for Tehran to continue its nuclear options. It’s equally surprising that Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly has long fuelled instability in the region without much attention. Perhaps no other region has an unchecked nuclear status. Therefore, it is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s nuclear ambitions, that have contributed to chaos in the Middle East.
The maximum pressure strategy of the Trump administration seems, at the surface, pro-Israel and anti-Iran, but it is an attempt by Washington to obtain maximum concessions from Tehran and explore a safe exit from the region. This is a common thread running across different administrations ever since President Obama concluded the JCPOA in 2015 with President Rouhani.
It’s arguable, but not ironic, that Iran’s nuclear status balances the regional security framework. In realist terms, nuclear balancing guarantees safety when a region is plagued by two hostile powers. If it crosses the ‘Nuclear Rubicon’, the stability-instability paradox, it might further make the region more complex but definitely stable. However, Trump’s threat will make the Middle East more chaotic and force Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions without delay. For Iran, nuclear power status is no more a qualification for becoming a regional hegemon but the only choice for survival.
