2LT John Beattie is an active-duty field artillery officer in the US Army. He is currently serving with 3-319th AFAR, 82nd Airborne Division, at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. He is a 2024 graduate of the US Military Academy with a Bachelor of Science Degree in International Affairs with a Minor in Grand Strategy. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature, nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.

National Security Situation:  Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East and Iran

Date Originally Written:  March 21, 2024

Date Originally Published:  March 26, 2025

Author and / or Article Point of View: The author is an active-duty military service member. The article is written from the point of view of the United States towards Iran.

Background:

Since the unveiling of the atomic bomb in 1945, nuclear proliferation has been a critical global concern. According to the UK Ministry of Defence, the number of nuclear-armed states is likely to rise in the coming years, at a rate of one or two nations per decade [1]. This challenge is especially pronounced in the Middle East, where Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities have triggered alarm over their potentially destabilizing impact on both regional and global security. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a revisionist state aiming to diminish American influence in the Middle East, maintaining a longstanding adversarial stance towards U.S. allies such as Israel and the Gulf State monarchies [2]. It is imperative for the United States to address the risk of Iranian nuclear breakout to both quell proliferation and uphold regional stability.

Significance:

In May of 2018, the United States backed out of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) established under the Obama administration and Tehran was no longer obligated to cease its ambitions to gain a nuclear weapon [3]. This development increased the likelihood of nuclear proliferation since Iran’s development of atomic capabilities would cause other neighboring countries to follow suit, with the situation quickly spiraling into an arms race [4]. In its pursuit of both regime survival and an erosion of U.S. influence, Tehran has extensively supported a robust network of proxy forces to engage in limited armed conflict against its adversaries, raising further concerns about nuclear terrorism if these groups were to access an Iranian nuclear bomb [5]. A failure to properly constrain Iran’s nuclear arsenal could have catastrophic consequences in the event of armed conflict between the Islamic Republic and nuclear armed actors like the U.S. and Israel. Therefore, concentrated efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and deter their employment are essential for safeguarding regional and international peace.

Option 1: Expanding U.S. Nuclear Deterrence

The United States forward deploys nuclear weapons in the Middle East through its Gulf State allies. Stationing missiles within proximity to Iranian borders strengthens the credibility of an American deterrent, assuring regional allies who would otherwise be inclined to develop their own arsenals. Moreover, Iranian missiles would likely be intercepted by advanced American missile defense systems such as the PATRIOT or THAAD systems [6].

Risks

Despite their relative inferiority compared to U.S. and Israeli capabilities, a nuclear-armed Iran could inflict enough economic and psychological damage on its neighboring countries to make them reconsider hosting U.S. military assets [7]. The prospect of suppressed support from its allies in the Persian Gulf would complicate U.S. efforts to credibly deter Iran. Furthermore, the placement of American nuclear weapons so close to Iranian borders could be perceived as a “red line” for Iran, provoking a preemptive strike that would significantly escalate tensions.

 Gains

Although never formally acknowledged, Israel’s regional monopoly on nuclear weapons has long contributed to instability in the Middle East [8]. A nuclear-armed Iran has long been a terrifying prospect for the Israelis, who would almost certainly move quickly to strike Iran. Extending U.S. nuclear deterrence would not only reassure Israel but also eliminate the need for Israel to consider the first-strike option, given the assurance of a credible deterrent in the form of superior capability overmatch.

Option 2: Arms Control Initiatives

The U.S. continues to integrate Iran into the global community of nuclear-armed states and aims to limit their capabilities through arms control treaties. In coordination with its regional allies, America initiates and leads a renewed international diplomatic effort to establish nuclear arms control measures and agreements in the Middle East. It aims to engage regional power brokers, including Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, in constructive dialogue to address concerns and establish mechanisms for limits on nuclear capabilities and further non-proliferation.

Risks

As a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Iran’s nuclear status would be in direct violation of its previous commitments, and thus present a serious challenge [9]. Even if Iran formally withdrew from the NPT in accordance with Article 10, its nuclear capabilities would serve as evidence of years of non-compliance. Furthermore, a history of bad-faith responses to treaty-imposed constaints increases the likelihood of Iranian non-compliance if presented with arms control initiatives.

Gains

Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear development program in exchange for an easing of Western sanctions, with aims to revitalize its struggling economy [10]. This previous baragin supports the idea that Iran might be willing to again commit to a treaty imposing restrictions on the quantity and varieties of its nuclear weapons. Moreover, gaining nuclear weapons may provide Iran with increased regional prestige, thereby enabling greater integration with a broader Middle Eastern community and making the prospect of reaching a deal more likely. Successful arms control initiatives could not only prevent an arms race in the Middle East but also solidify the existing status-quo balance of nuclear power between Israel and Iran.

Recommendation: None.

Endnotes

[1] UK Ministry of Defence, Global Strategic Trends: The Future Starts Today, October 2, 2018, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62828be5e90e071f69f22596/GST_the_future_starts_today.pdf, 143.

[2] Alireza Nader, Iran After the Bomb: How Would a Nuclear-Armed Tehran Behave?, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2013, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR310.html, 31.

[3] Kayhan Valadbaygi, “Unpacking the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): Internationalisation of Capital, Imperial Rivalry and Cooperation, and Regional Power Agency”, Politics (Manchester, England: 2023),  26339572311720-.Web, 11.

[4] UK Ministry of Defence, Global Strategic Trends, 144.

[5] Kenneth Waltz, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability”, Foreign Affairs91, no. 4 (2012): 3.

[6] Nader, Iran After the Bomb, 18.

[7] Ibid.