“When it came to nuclear weapons, the U.S. had two top priorities in the 1990s. One was to ensure that newly independent Ukraine handed over its vast arsenal to Russia. The other was to prevent North Korea from obtaining its own nukes.
The first effort was a success, but today, many regard Ukraine's disarmament as a strategic blunder, leaving it vulnerable to a Russia. The second attempt was a failure: Pyongyang deftly exploited American reluctance to use military force and became a nuclear-armed state that can challenge global security.
Now, as Israel unleashes its military seeking to prevent what it says could be a similar nuclear breakthrough by Iran, these examples are being carefully studied around the world. Is the lesson that countries facing existential threats need nuclear weapons to survive? Or that pursuing those weapons is too dangerous, encouraging enemies to strike while they still can?
In the past, it was mostly rogue states like Libya, Syria and Iraq that tried to obtain nukes. Today the option is being seriously contemplated by American allies such as South Korea, Japan, Poland, Germany and Turkey, who worry that they can no longer rely on Washington's protection. President Trump has fueled this existential dread by questioning the value of NATO, cutting off military aid to Ukraine and considering a pullback of American forces from South Korea.
Meanwhile, North Korea emerged from isolation to join a formal military alliance with Russia, sending troops to fight on European soil and testing its ballistic missiles on Ukrainian cities. It could do so with impunity because, unlike Tehran's theocracy, Pyongyang's totalitarian regime has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and doesn't fear being challenged with military force.
"A lot of countries will now be thinking that nuclear weapons are the ticket to sovereignty," said Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO who served as special envoy for Ukraine in the first Trump administration [1]. "If we don't change our behavior -- and I don't expect we will -- the world we're going to live in 20 years from now will be a world with lots of nuclear-weapons states."
Nuclear-weapons technology is some 80 years old, and it's within reach of any determined industrialized nation.
Yet the nuclear club has remained small. The five nuclear powers recognized by the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K. -- are all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The other four nuclear powers don't belong to the NPT. India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998; North Korea tested its first bomb in 2006. Israel, whose program drew on French assistance in the 1960s, is believed to have at least 90 warheads, but maintains a formal policy of ambiguity about its nuclear status.
The U.S. has long encouraged allied nations to rely on the American nuclear umbrella for protection rather than building their own arsenals. Despite all the fears sparked by the Trump administration, American officials insist that security commitments to allies remain ironclad. "We're not going anywhere," said Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, at a conference in Brussels this month. "The United States cannot go alone into this very dangerous world, and so we need our allies. But we need allies that are capable, that are strong as well, and that can join the fight if a fight breaks out."
Yet those promises sound less convincing in a ruthless global environment where interlocking conflicts continue to expand. "The international order, which we knew for 80 years after World War II, has fallen apart. That international order created a certain predictable environment, including nonproliferation treaties on so many types of weapons," said Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky.
To France, the decision by President Charles de Gaulle to develop a fully independent nuclear capability in the 1960s, instead of relying on American promises, looks like a stroke of historic genius today. That decision went against American wishes at the time, noted French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu. "We have always believed that we cannot delegate our security to others," he said.
While North Korea pursued a secret nuclear-weapons program primarily based on producing plutonium, Iran -- which is a member of the NPT -- developed an ostensibly civilian nuclear-energy program based on enriching uranium. Israel and the U.S. say that was a cover for its nuclear-weapons ambitions. The program has cost Iran an estimated $1 trillion, between direct spending and the impact of sanctions. Yet it has turned out to be worse than useless in preventing the current Israeli onslaught.
"Instead of being a strategic asset, the nuclear program has proven a huge strategic liability for the regime," said Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. "But when the dust of this war settles, there is a danger that the takeaway of Iran's next leadership will be not that the mistake was to pursue nuclear weapons -- they may think that the mistake was not to pursue nuclear weapons more rapidly."
Iran's neighbors are watching, too. In Turkey, TV commentators and some nationalist politicians have already called for developing nuclear weapons to deter Israel. "The future of the Middle East will be the rivalry between Israel and Turkey, given the weakening of Iran," said Gerard Araud, a former French ambassador to the U.S. and the UN. "And in a region with a nuclear-armed power that uses military force to the extent that it does, if I were a Turkish strategist, I would consider the hypothesis of going nuclear to face an aggressive Israel."
For Turkey and other potential nuclear states, any attempt to acquire nukes would incur considerable political and economic costs. Most existing nuclear powers oppose any erosion of their edge, and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have historically used sanctions to punish violations of the NPT. But that international consensus is dwindling.
"NPT is not dead, but it is now in a crisis mode," said Ukraine's former foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin, who was involved in nuclear disarmament talks in the 1990s as a young diplomat. "The NPT is not sustainable when a lot of countries feel that they are not secure delivering on NPT. And if they feel that they are not secure, they will think of something else."
Nuclear experts say that it could take between two and five years for an industrial nation to gain nuclear capability -- if it isn't stopped by an attack, the way Israel ended Syria's nuclear program in 2007 and Iraq's in 1981.
North Korea may have similar intentions when it comes to its southern neighbor. "What is happening in Iran is making South Koreans think twice about going nuclear. North Korea would have a strong incentive to prevent that, especially because South Korea has a conventional superiority," said Lami Kim, a professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, a Honolulu-based think-tank affiliated with the Pentagon.
Nuclear capability doesn't come cheap. Obtaining weapons and the means to deliver them, such as missiles, would cost at least several billion dollars, and potentially much more if international sanctions are imposed.
"Everyone wants to be able to fight outside their weight class, which is what being a nuclear power allows," said Rep. Brian Mast, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Yet many countries that considered going nuclear in the past "stepped back and said, we just simply can't afford to do that because we would have to put all those other things aside, despite our desire."
The U.S. and other existing nuclear powers long argued against proliferation on the grounds that a planet with dozens of nuclear-armed states would be inherently much more unstable, even threatening the survival of humanity as a whole. When India and Pakistan clashed in May following a terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir, "You had a world on edge in a way that would not have otherwise been because they were two nuclear powers that were in direct conflict directly next to one another," noted Mast.
Yet some argue that the clash ended quickly, and didn't turn into a full-scale war, precisely because both sides could exercise nuclear deterrence. That's a lesson for South Korea, which sees its strategic position increasingly endangered by the growth of North Korean military strength.
The expanding range of North Korea's missiles and the potency of its nuclear arsenal mean that it now has the ability to threaten the U.S. mainland, which could deter future U.S. military action to protect South Korea. That leaves South Korea facing the same dilemma that prompted France to go nuclear, after de Gaulle asked President John F. Kennedy whether the U.S. would risk having New York City destroyed to protect Paris -- and failed to obtain a clear-cut answer.
Opinion polls now show that a majority of South Koreans view American promises of security as insufficient, and some three-quarters want the country to acquire its own nuclear weapons. Support for nukes now "is in the middle of the mainstream," said Eric Ballbach, an expert on Korea at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, noting that backing for a nuclear option has expanded beyond its traditional conservative base to parts of the center-left led by newly elected President Lee Jae-myung.
"Trump is certainly not going to take nuclear risks for allies, that's just painfully obvious," said Robert E. Kelly, a professor at Pusan National University in South Korea. He has authored several papers arguing that Seoul should develop an independent nuclear deterrent.
"Nobody believes that South Korea is going to launch a nuclear weapon out of the blue, nobody thinks that if Poland builds a nuclear weapon, they're going to drop it on Moscow," Kelly said. "These are democracies, and if they build a nuclear weapon, that's OK. It's only the American hubris that convinces us that we are the only ones responsible enough to manage these weapons." [2]
1. Recent events, particularly Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, have ignited discussions about the motivations behind Iran's nuclear program and its impact on the nation's elite.
.
Arguments for Nuclear Weapons as a Condition for Survival:
Deterrence: Israel's attacks pushes Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, as a nuclear arsenal is viewed as a vital deterrent against future attacks, especially direct military strikes from Israel or the US.
Response to Hostile Environment: Iran's leadership starts perceive the regional environment as hostile, and the pursuit of nuclear weapons is seen as a way to balance the conventional and perceived nuclear threats from its adversaries.
Domestic and External Pressure: The continued pressure from sanctions and lack of sanctions relief, coupled with the Israeli strikes, may strengthen the hand of those within Iran who advocate for nuclear weapons as a means of survival and leverage in negotiations.
Counterarguments and Alternative Perspectives:
No Decision Made: Current US intelligence assessments indicate that Iran has not made a decision to develop nuclear weapons, despite its capabilities.
Mixed Record of Counterproliferation Strikes: While past strikes, like the one against Syria in 2007, were successful (Syria’s elite of the day lost power), others, such as the 1981 Osirak strike on Iraq, paradoxically led to accelerated nuclear weapons programs. Whether Israel's actions deter or encourage Iran to pursue nuclear weapons is yet to be determined.
Focus on Civilian Program: Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, specifically for civilian nuclear power.
Internal Divisions and Geopolitical Context: Iran's strategic choices and the international response to the attacks will play a crucial role in determining its nuclear future. The geopolitical context, including potential US involvement and broader regional dynamics, will also influence Iran's decisions.
Conclusion:
Israel's recent strikes have undoubtedly raised concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions and altered Tehran's strategic calculations.
2. REVIEW --- The Nuclear-Weapons Club Could Get a Lot Bigger --- War in Iran, and rising doubts about the reliability of the U.S., are making countries around the world wonder if having their own nukes is the key to survival. Trofimov, Yaroslav. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 21 June 2025: C1.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą