Beyond national pride or deterrence, Iran’s nuclear push is deeply embedded in its regime survival strategy, regional ambitions, and ideological warfare with the West.
For decades, the world has grappled with the Islamic Republic’s relentless pursuit of nuclear capabilities, often viewing it through the narrow lens of proliferation and deterrence.
Yet, a closer examination reveals a more sinister truth: Iran’s nuclear program is not merely about acquiring a bomb, but a multifaceted tool designed to hold the world hostage, extract concessions, and aggressively advance its anti-Western and anti-Israel agenda.
Iran’s nuclear journey
Iran’s nuclear journey, initiated under the ousted shah for ostensibly peaceful purposes, took a clandestine and ominous turn after the 1979 revolution. While Tehran consistently claims its program is for civilian energy, international assessments, notably from the IAEA and various intelligence agencies, paint a starkly different picture.
Iran’s actions – from undeclared activities to enriching uranium to 60%, a short technical step from weapons-grade – betray its true intentions. Recent reports indicating sufficient 60% enriched uranium for multiple weapons, alongside intelligence suggesting a “well advanced” nuclear weapons program, expose the hollowness of Iran’s peaceful pronouncements.
The nuclear program is, first and foremost, a “life insurance policy” for the clerical regime. Internally, it projects strength and legitimacy, deterring internal dissent and quashing any hint of popular uprising. Giving up enrichment would be perceived as a symbolic surrender, signaling weakness and potentially inviting domestic unrest. Regionally, it serves as a powerful lever for projecting influence and fostering the “Axis of Resistance.”
This network of proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, is not merely a byproduct of Iranian foreign policy but a deliberate extension of its power, allowing Tehran to wage proxy wars and destabilize the Middle East with plausible deniability. The nuclear program underpins this expansion, granting Iran a unique form of leverage and a deterrent against external intervention.
Iran has mastered the art of nuclear brinkmanship, using its advancements as currency in negotiations. Each step closer to weaponization, from increasing enrichment levels to restricting IAEA access, is calculated to extract concessions, primarily the lifting of sanctions.Diplomacy, for Tehran, is less about genuine compromise and more about stalling for time. Iran systematically delays engagement, prefers indirect talks to control narratives, and uses obfuscation and procrastination to prolong discussions while continuing its enrichment activities.
The threat of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is another potent bargaining chip, wielded to pressure interlocutors into offering economic relief or restraining regional adversaries. This strategic deceit, rooted in the Shi’ite concepts of “taqiyyah” (religious dissimulation) and “khod’eh” (strategic deceit), allows the regime to maintain flexibility and present a deceptive facade while pursuing its ultimate ideological goals.
Enduring hostility
At the core of Iran’s nuclear ambition lies a revolutionary ideology steeped in enduring hostility toward the United States, branded “the Great Satan,” and an obsessive desire for the destruction of Israel, “the Little Satan.” This is not mere rhetoric; “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” are ingrained in Iran’s political, educational, and religious institutions.
For Tehran’s leadership, Israel’s very existence is an ideological affront, a “cancerous tumor” that undermines their vision of regional domination. Any agreement based solely on technical constraints without addressing this fundamental ideological animosity is, therefore, fragile and dangerously naive.
This ideological fervor explains why appeasement policies, such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), have demonstrably failed. Critics, including staunch pro-American and pro-Israel voices, rightly argued that the sanctions relief provided by the JCPOA would embolden Iran, funding its proxy wars and strengthening its military capabilities.
The deal’s insufficient inspection regime and the looming expiration of key restrictions were seen not as pathways to peace but as enabling Iran’s long-term nuclear ambitions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu famously called the JCPOA a “historic mistake,” warning that it would fuel Iranian terrorism and aggression. History has proven these concerns valid, as Iran has leveraged every concession to deepen its regional footprint and accelerate its nuclear advancements.
Given Iran’s deeply ingrained motivations, a policy of appeasement is not merely ineffective; it is dangerous. The United States and Israel must recognize that Iran will never voluntarily abandon its nuclear enrichment unless forced to do so. This demands a long-term strategy centered on robust containment and a credible preemptive posture.
True denuclearization requires the wholesale dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, not just temporary freezes or limitations. This means restoring and expanding UN Security Council sanctions, maintaining maximum economic pressure, and, crucially, presenting a genuinely credible military deterrent.
Military options
Both American and Israeli military options must remain on the table, not as a first resort but as the ultimate guarantee that Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, a strategy must address the fundamental nature of the regime itself, acknowledging that lasting stability may ultimately require internal transformation.
The alternative – a nuclear-armed Iran – would fundamentally alter the global security landscape, unleashing an unprecedented arms race in the Middle East and emboldening the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The bomb is not an endpoint for Iran; it is merely a powerful enabler for its broader, destructive plan.
Only a resolute, unwavering stance from America and Israel, prepared for the long haul and decisive action, can safeguard regional security and prevent the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear Iran.
The writer, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx.