For nearly eight decades, the world has been living under the shadow of nuclear weapons, but also under an unwritten rule that, despite wars, crises, and geopolitical conflicts, has not been violated since 1945: no state has ever used a nuclear weapon in war again. Today, however, as tension between Iran, Israel, and the US escalates dangerously, a question that until recently was considered unthinkable returns to strategic circles: Could Washington or Tel Aviv consider the use of nuclear weapons against Iran? The mere fact that this discussion is taking place reveals how dangerously the international environment has altered. Although there are no indications that Washington or Tel Aviv are preparing a nuclear strike against Iran, the discussion about such a possibility has appeared from time to time in strategic and military circles, mainly due to the difficulty of destroying certain Iranian facilities with conventional means. Certain analysts have argued that some deeply underground facilities such as Fordow are extremely difficult to destroy with conventional weapons. That is where much of the discussion regarding the "nuclear option" stems from, as some theorists wonder whether even the strongest conventional bombs are sufficient.
The only state that used nuclear weapons
There is a historical reality that cannot be ignored. Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war: The US. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 did not merely constitute military operations. They opened a new era in human history, where the potential for total destruction became part of international politics. Since then, Washington has appeared as a guarantor of global security and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, for a large part of the planet, it also remains the only power that proved in practice that it is willing to use such weapons when it deems it necessary, The Cradle explains in its analysis. This is precisely why any discussion regarding a nuclear strike against Iran causes immense anxiety.
Israel and the policy of strategic immunity
At the same time, Israel continues to maintain the policy of so-called "nuclear ambiguity". Officially, it neither confirms nor denies the possession of a nuclear arsenal. In practice, however, it is widely considered to possess a significant number of nuclear warheads, a fact that grants it a unique strategic position in the Middle East. Critics of Tel Aviv argue that the country enjoys a status of peculiar immunity, as while it demands that other countries do not acquire nuclear capabilities, it is not subject to the same degree of international control. This contradiction lies at the core of today's crisis.
The illusion of a "limited" nuclear strike
Certain strategic analysts have from time to time referred to the use of a "tactical" nuclear weapon, a lower-yield nuclear device that could theoretically be used against military facilities or isolated areas. This is an extremely dangerous logic. The idea that there can be a "controlled" use of a nuclear weapon constitutes perhaps one of the greatest illusions of modern strategic thought. Even if a nuclear explosion were to take place in a deserted region of Iran, the political and psychological result would be immense. The message to the rest of the world would be clear: Nuclear weapons can once again be used as a tool of political blackmail. And from the moment this message is sent, no international treaty will be able to prevent other countries from pursuing their own nuclear deterrence.
The discussion about nuclear weapons reveals a strategic deadlock
Another question that is often avoided in public discussion concerns the very reason why scenarios of nuclear use against Iran are returning. Many geopolitical analysts argue that the appearance of such scenarios is not an indication of strength, but possibly an indication of strategic frustration. Despite the undeniable military superiority of the US and Israel, the reality is that Iran remains a particularly difficult strategic problem. For decades, Washington and Tel Aviv have invested massive resources in sanctions, covert operations, cyberattacks, targeted assassinations, and military pressure. However, the Iranian state not only did not collapse, but it maintained its cohesion, developed significant missile capabilities, and created a broad network of regional allies and partners. The geography of Iran constitutes a huge deterrence factor by itself. It is a country with a vast territory, mountain ranges, scattered military facilities, and significant strategic depth.
Iran cannot be neutralized by conventional means
In contrast to other military operations conducted by the US in the Middle East in recent decades, Iran does not constitute a target that can easily be neutralized through limited airstrikes. This is precisely why several analysts consider that any discussion regarding the "nuclear option" essentially reveals the limits of conventional military power. If the US and Israel were certain that they could achieve their strategic goals through conventional means, then the nuclear dimension would not even appear in public discussion. In other words, the existence of such scenarios can be interpreted as an indirect admission that even the largest military machine in the world struggles to impose a decisive solution against a state with the size, population, and capabilities of Iran. From this perspective, the discussion about nuclear weapons does not reveal the strength of the US and Israel. It reveals the strategic deadlock they face when trying to convert military superiority into a definitive political victory. And this is exactly what renders these specific scenarios so dangerous. Because in history, the most dangerous decisions are often not taken by those who feel omnipotent, but by those who realize that their power is not enough to achieve the result they pursue.
The paradox of deterrence
If the goal of a nuclear attack were to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, then the result would likely be exactly the opposite. Every state watching such a development would arrive at the same conclusion: Whoever does not possess nuclear weapons is vulnerable. Whoever possesses nuclear weapons is safer. In other words, a nuclear strike would not only fail to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but it would function as the strongest catalyst for its acceleration.
Iran is not Hiroshima
Another critical element that is often overlooked is the very geography of Iran. Iran is one of the largest countries in the region, with a vast territory, rugged mountains, extensive infrastructure, and a population of tens of millions of people. The idea that one or two nuclear bombs could "eliminate" Iran belongs more to the sphere of political rhetoric than military reality. Even Tehran, one of the largest metropolitan areas in the Middle East, could not be completely destroyed by a single nuclear strike. The destruction would be terrifying. But Iran is not just Tehran. And history has proven that societies rarely surrender because they receive violent blows. Often, exactly the opposite happens.
The collapse of the international order
The biggest question does not even concern Iran. It concerns the world that will emerge afterward. What will happen to NATO if the US becomes directly involved in a nuclear strike? How will European societies react? How will Russia, China, Pakistan, or North Korea react? How many countries will decide that the only way to survive is to acquire nuclear weapons? The use of nuclear weapons would not only affect the Middle East. It would change the rules of the international system for decades.
A precedent with no return
The real question is not whether the US or Israel can technically use nuclear weapons. They can. The real question is whether any political leadership is willing to assume the responsibility for the collapse of the most important taboo the world maintained after World War II. Because the moment the nuclear threshold is crossed, nothing will be the same. It will not just be an attack against Iran. It will be an event that will alter the entire international order, accelerate the global nuclear race, and inaugurate an era in which the threat of nuclear violence will return to the center of global politics. And from that point onward, humanity might never be able to return to the world it knew until today.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών