The ongoing war in the Middle East is a litmus test for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The so-called rules-based order is unraveling in the wake of the support of West to Israel in the uninterrupted genocide in Gaza. These provocations of Israel and the blind eye of the West towards it is leading to rise of security dilemma for other states in the region – especially Iran. The recent escalation between Iran and Israel can be an external stimulus for Tehran to change its position on nuclear weapons and Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The dichotomous approach of West towards Israel and Iran can change the security thinking of Tehran to pursue a nuclear weapon of their own. This would have negative implications for the non-proliferation regime, however, one of its own makings.
The advent of nuclear weapons elevated the consequences and cost of fighting a war unbearable for nuclear weapon states because of the advanced repercussions like Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and Balance of Terror. Bernard Brodie in his work “the Absolute Weapon, 1946” said, “Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them. It can have almost no other useful purpose”. The danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons, however, led the international community to the formation of a nuclear non-proliferation regime. The final version of NPT adopted in 1968 divided the world into haves and have-nots – five nuclear weapon states and other non-nuclear weapon states. The nuclear weapon states are obliged not to assist “in any way” the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
However, the disproportionality in terms of military capabilities between two states can force them to focus on the development of both conventional and non-conventional weapons. According to Scott Sagan, there are three models explaining the decision of states to acquire nuclear weapons; 1) security 2) domestic politics and 3) the norms model. In the ongoing war in the Middle East, the element of proportionality in terms of military capabilities is missing. The strategic and conventional superiority of Israel is unmatched in the region. In the case of Iran-Israel, there is an asymmetry between the military capabilities of the two states, especially at non-conventional level. Israel possesses nuclear weapons and has technological superiority in terms of conventional capabilities over other regional states.
The ongoing conflict can change the decision of Tehran’s government on not developing nuclear weapons. Tehran’s distrust of the international community and particularly the NPT regime can increase, thus pushing Iran to develop its own nuclear capability. Western powers, the proponents of rule-based order, are in fact in this case creating more reasons for Iran to prioritize their national security. The United States, United Kingdom and other western countries are providing military aid to Israel. There has always been a blind eye by the international community towards the nuclear weapons of Israel. However, when if one flips coin, one sees a tremendously sanctioned Iran and the non-proliferation regime trying head-to-toe to delay and stop Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. This partisan approach of western powers is affecting the functioning of non-proliferation regime where the effects of the regime are unevenly distributed.
A militarily superior state is carrying out mass atrocities and war crimes against the civilians and the champions of liberal world order are not only the silent spectators, but they are assisting Tel Aviv both financially and militarily. This is a strategic concern for Iran and its allies – resistance axis – and the concern is manifesting itself in the form of a security dilemma.
Although there’s a religious Fatwa, from Iran’s supreme leader, stating that the nuclear weapons are against Sharia Law, however, this statement doesn’t translate into a binding law particularly when Iran’s survival is threatened. Tehran can be highly adamant to acquire the nuclear capability given a situation where the crisis with Israel is spiraling out of control. The hyper partisan approach by NPT sponsor states within existing structure and process is further adding to the contentment of Iran regarding its quest for the acquisition of Nuclear weapons. After the failure of JCPOA because of the US withdrawal, western states are reluctant to come up with any other agreement or revive the existing one to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. The withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA was already a stain on the non-proliferation regime that would be further deepened if Iran chose to join the nuclear club. Moreover, Iran’s decision to develop nuclear weapons can also lead to further proliferation with other regional states also looking towards the option. The statement made by King Salman accentuates the fact that horizontal proliferation is probable if Iran decides to weaponize its nuclear program. It is aptly said that proliferation begets more proliferation but in case of Middle East, a more conventional arrangement like a non-progressive and partisan approach by NPT sponsors, absence of a comprehensive deescalating mechanism, military imbalances, and disrespect for international law especially in crisis and conflict might escalate the conflict in the region. The above arrangements might not only escalate the conflict, but it can also challenge the very foundation of rule-based world order, i.e. human rights, legitimate use of Force and non-proliferation regime.
Arsalan Mehdi is an MS Scholar in International Relations. His research interests include security studies and the evolving dynamics of the world order. He is particularly focused on analyzing shifts in global power structures and their implications for international security.
