از پیشگیری هستهای تا گسترش هستهای
برای نسخه فارسی به پایین صفحه مراجعه کنید
From Nuclear Prevention to Proliferation
The war that was meant to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon may end by ensuring that it does. That outcome is not accidental. It is the result of a sequence of decisions that dismantled the last remaining restraints on direct conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States.
Iran once used nuclear enrichment as leverage. It was a tool to ease sanctions and stabilize relations with Europe. The JCPOA came out of that strategy. It imposed limits and created a working balance. That balance was broken by Washington. In his first term, President Trump withdrew from the agreement after sustained pressure from Israel and its advocates, who had consistently opposed the deal and pushed for its termination. Iran responded as expected. It expanded enrichment and increased capacity. Even then, it remained inside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and continued to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The next step was escalation. In June 2025, Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. That decision did not emerge in isolation. It came under sustained pressure from Israel, which had long pushed for direct action against Iran’s nuclear program. That strike did not stop the trajectory. By March 2026, Israel again drove events to a breaking point, and the United States was pulled into a broader war, joining Israel in bombing Iranian targets. This was not a response to a clearly defined imminent threat presented to the American public. It was another instance where U.S. military action aligned closely with Israeli strategic priorities, with Washington entering the conflict without a clear, consistent justification of its own.
For nearly five decades, deterrence held. It was not clean. It did not stop covert action, sanctions, or proxy wars. But it stopped direct war. That line is now gone. Once that barrier was broken, the calculation in Tehran changed. If the Islamic Republic survives this war, it cannot assume restraint will protect it. Conventional missiles have not deterred Israel. They have not stopped the United States from joining the fight.
The facts are straightforward. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran accumulated large quantities of uranium enriched to 60 percent, material that can be pushed to weapons-grade levels. At the same time, it has not confirmed the existence of an active weapons program before the war. That is the contradiction. A war justified by nuclear risk is now creating the incentive for an actual nuclear deterrent.
Inside Iran, the argument is no longer theoretical. Some within the system now openly say it was a mistake not to build nuclear bombs earlier. Their reasoning is direct. If Iran had a nuclear deterrent, this war would not have happened. Israel and the United States act because they can. The imbalance of power makes it possible. From that view, nuclear weapons are not escalation. It is correction. It is the only way to impose limits. That logic is already extending further. There are calls to reconsider Iran’s membership in the NPT. The question being asked is blunt: what is the value of staying inside a system that does not protect you? Nuclear powers can strike. Non-nuclear states are expected to absorb it. That is not a balanced framework. Technically, Iran can move forward. The capability exists. The constraint is political, not technical.
The conclusion is hard to avoid. If the Islamic Republic survives this war, and current conditions suggest it will, the pressure to develop a nuclear weapon will increase. Once that decision is made, stopping it becomes extremely difficult. It would require sustained war or acceptance of a new reality. If Iran crosses that threshold, the region changes. The current order will not hold. Alliances will shift. Risk will be recalculated. A different balance will emerge, built on deterrence rather than prevention. The final point is the most direct. A war launched to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon may end by ensuring that it does.
What follows will not be an accident. It will be the direct outcome of choices already made. If Iran moves to build a nuclear weapon, it will not be because deterrence failed. It will be because it was deliberately dismantled. The responsibility will not be ambiguous. It will sit with those who chose escalation over restraint, and war over stability. At that point, the argument about prevention ends. The consequences begin.
By: M.Davar
April 2026
—————————————————————————————————–
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IranOnline.com.
Below are a few of recently published related article by M. Davar
The U.S. and Israel: From “Weekend War” to Strategic Failure
Reza Pahlavi and the Line of Betrayal
No Kings in Washington, A Throne for Tehran
Israel’s Long Strategy Against Iran and the Reza Pahlavi Question
Exile, Intervention, and a Nation Trapped Between Power and Betrayal
Name Recognition Is Not Legitimacy: The Limits of Exile Leadership
Pushing Toward Conflict: The Calculations Driving the U.S. and Iran to the Brink
Manufacturing a Leader? The Rise of Reza Pahlavi
Iran’s Revolution: The Distance Between Rhetoric and Resistance
Iran at the Crossroads: Liberation, Illusion, and the Cost of Foreign Salvation