Iran and the nuclear question

Only a fair non-proliferation regime can make nations not seek atomic weapons

Alok Tiwari

It is obvious Israel’s attack on Iran was largely to deflect attention from its growing atrocities in Gaza. The onslaught in Gaza was beginning to cost Israel dearly in terms of support from its mostly western allies. Initial action of Israel against Hamas leadership in Gaza had almost global backing in the aftermath of Hamas’s terrible raid Oct 7, 2023, in Israel that resulted in death of hundreds of Israelis with dozens more taken hostage. Even its action against Hezbollah in Lebanon was tolerated because of support the latter lent to Hamas. But nearly two years on, it is clear Israel’s retaliation has been much more brutal than the original action warranted. It is now targeting mostly civilians. Its aim no longer looks confined to neutralizing Hamas. Instead, it appears to terrify the Gazans into leaving the area permanently.

This has not gone unnoticed, particularly in Europe. Under pressure from their own population horrified by Israeli excesses in Gaza, government after government has shifted stance calling for a halt to operations. The tone in mainstream media has also shifted from tacit support to distinct berating of Israel. For far too long, the Israel managed to label any criticism of itself as anti-Semitic. Now that appears to be cracking. Criticising Israel is no longer same as being against Jews as a whole. Israel is beginning to be seen for what it has become, a rogue entity that does not respect international norms. It is only a matter of time when eroding public support also ends up drying up the financial and weapons pipeline to Israel. For all its vaunted achievements, that pipeline from west, particularly from US, is still critical for Israel.

Add the domestic political troubles of prime minister Binjamin Netyanahu to this mix and the reasons for this unprovoked attack on Iran become obvious. Nothing unites a populace better than a war. This is truer in Israel that has existed amidst hostile neighbours for decades. A far bigger international conflict automatically makes Gaza take a backseat. Already the global headlines have shifted to the latest conflict.

Israel has said its attack on Iran is to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons. It has long said it would not allow Iran to have those weapons that it sees as existential threat to itself. That reason aligns with the aim of the West. Efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions are age-old. Even now, US and Iran were in talks to revive a multi-national treaty that would have allowed Iran to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme while giving up effort to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel’s attack led Iran to walk away from the talks.

For Israel, Iran is much easier target to attack, even on moral terms. Iran has covertly and overtly stirred the middle east pot since ages. It has supported awful regimes and militias in the region. Since 1980, when the Shah regime collapsed, Ayatollahs running the country have not only defied the West but have also run a brutal and repressive regime at home. This has led to the country being under western sanctions for much of this period. Its capacity to retaliate as well as to wage a prolonged war is limited. Any dramatic escalation that increases domestic hardship will likely lead to rebellion against the Islamist regime. Israel knows this very well.

It is not clear how far Israeli attacks have set the Iranian nuclear programme back. Israelis have successfully targeted several key scientists and military figures. Still, Iran has always anticipated Israeli attack. It is safe to assume much of its nuclear facilities would be well protected. Iran has long sought to develop nuclear weapons as ultimate protection against not just Israel but several other hostile powers in the region and West. It may be close to achieving success.

There is no denying that an Iranian N-bomb is a terrible idea. But it must be understood why Iran and many other countries want it and will continue to want it. Nuclear weapons are seen to provide ultimate protection against any existential threat. Already, there are many more countries having nuclear capability than the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisaged. India and Pakistan have been declared nuclear powers since 1998. Israel and North Korea have their own arsenals. There are dozens of advanced countries that can go nuclear in a heartbeat but do not because they enjoy nuclear shield of western powers.

Nuclear weapons technology is now relatively commonplace. What is preventing further proliferation is relative difficulty in getting the raw materials needed and the perception of individual nations that they do not need these weapons, yet. Even those will eventually be overcome if there is no fundamental change in international nuclear regime. Nations will want nuclear shield as long as it remains ultimate guarantee against aggression. And nations that want it bad enough will eventually get it.

An international control regime that aims at perpetuating nuclear apartheid is bound to fail, no matter how many countries sign the NPT. No nation can say it is okay for it to have these weapons but not for others. Only a regime that treats all nations equally and provides or denies nuclear shield to all has a chance to succeed in the long run. Any agreement, treaty, pact that is fundamentally unequal, unfair, and unjust will not work. It is not in human nature to accept it.

Of course, some countries will be better custodians of such weapons than others. But make no mistake, all will want the safety and security they provide. The nuclear haves of the world need to understand that the have-nots will not sit idle and accept the status quo forever. It is in the interest of all that they come up with a regime that is morally and militarily acceptable and treats everyone equally.