Imagine a world where attempts to prevent a nuclear threat inadvertently push a nation closer to becoming one. This is the chilling reality experts warn we may face with Iran.
For over two decades, the international community has grappled with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The US and Israel, aiming to end this standoff, have launched strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. But here's where it gets controversial: could these actions actually accelerate Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon?
Iran has consistently maintained its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. However, the discovery of undeclared enrichment sites in 2002 cast a long shadow of doubt. The 2015 nuclear deal, while imposing strict limitations and inspections, offered a glimmer of hope. But when the US withdrew in 2018, Iran resumed its enrichment activities, raising alarms globally.
And this is the part most people miss: By last summer, Iran had amassed over 440kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) at 60% purity. Reaching 90% purity, the threshold for weapons-grade uranium, becomes significantly easier from this point. This stockpile, coupled with Iran's technical capabilities, could theoretically produce over 10 nuclear warheads.
This alarming development fueled the US-Israeli strikes in June, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer. While causing significant damage, the attacks failed to destroy deeply buried facilities like those in Isfahan and Natanz. Iran's subsequent expulsion of UN inspectors further complicated matters, leaving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unable to track the fate of the HEU stockpile.
Despite this uncertainty, the IAEA director general recently stated there's no evidence of a structured nuclear weapons program. However, proliferation experts warn that an attack aimed at regime change could drastically alter this landscape. The death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who issued a religious decree against nuclear weapons, could remove a crucial deterrent.
What if the attack fails to topple the regime? Jeffrey Lewis, a global security expert, warns of a “tremendous roll of the dice.” Thousands of skilled Iranians could potentially rebuild the program, driven by a desire for security in a perceived hostile world, much like North Korea's rationale.
Kelsey Davenport, a nonproliferation policy expert, echoes this concern. She argues that even if the regime survives, the attack's nature could push Iran towards weaponization. Furthermore, a collapsed regime or civil war could lead to the loss of control over the HEU stockpile, creating a grave risk of nuclear terrorism – a scenario the US administration seems to downplay.
This complex situation raises crucial questions: Can military action effectively prevent nuclear proliferation, or does it risk exacerbating the problem? What are the long-term consequences of regime change attempts in a nuclear-capable state? The world watches with bated breath, hoping for a peaceful resolution to this high-stakes game of nuclear poker.
