On June 13, Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran with the goal of not just destroying Tehran’s nuclear programme, but also to potentially trigger a regime change in the country. 

Among the hundreds of casualties in Iran are over two dozen nuclear scientists and more than twenty senior military commanders, including the chief of staff and the head of the Revolutionary Guards. 

Iran has retaliated to the attacks by targeting Israeli military bases, firing hundreds of missiles and drones that managed to pierce through the zionist state’s much-vaunted Iron Dome shield. 

For decades, Israel has sounded the alarm, particularly to the United States and its Western allies, about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Yet, this is one of the most ironic episodes in international relations. 

Israel has long been suspected to be a nuclear-armed state, though it has never officially acknowledged this fact, and has conveniently refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Yet, ironically, it seeks to dismantle the nuclear programme of Iran, a nation that has signed the NPT and permits international inspections.

Israel’s antagonistic behaviour is not new. In 1981 and 2007, it destroyed the nuclear reactors of Iraq and Syria, respectively. On both occasions, the international community remained silent, failing to sanction Israel or deter future aggression.

Tell-all stories

Seymour Hersh, in his 1991 book The Samson Option, detailed how Israel developed a nuclear weapons programme since the 1950s with little scrutiny, aside from a bit of pressure from then-US president John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s. 

In 1960, the US discovered Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility through intelligence and aerial surveillance. Israel initially claimed the site was a textile plant, then labelled it a research reactor.

Kennedy, a staunch opponent of nuclear proliferation, viewed Israel’s secret nuclear activities as a threat to global stability. 

Between 1961 and 1963, he demanded regular US inspections of the Dimona facility and sent several letters to the then Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion, demanding transparency. 

In April 1963, Kennedy warned that US support could be jeopardised without compliance. Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned before responding. His successor, Levi Eshkol, delayed and avoided full inspections.

Martin Sandler, a leading authority on Kennedy and a prominent American historian, has suggested, after extensive review of Kennedy-era documents, that the Israeli Mossad orchestrated Kennedy’s assassination to halt US pressure.

After Kennedy’s death, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson relaxed US demands, allowing Israel’s nuclear programme to continue unchecked.

Though Israel has never officially declared its nuclear arsenal, overwhelming evidence supports its existence. The most conclusive proof came in 1986 when Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu leaked photos and technical details of Israel’s nuclear programme to The Sunday Times. 

Experts concluded Israel had at least 100 nuclear warheads by the mid-1980s. Furthermore, intelligence reports, satellite imagery, and whistleblower accounts have confirmed Israel’s nuclear capability.

Former US president Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State Colin Powell have both publicly acknowledged Israel’s nuclear arsenal. 

Analysts estimate Israel currently possesses between 100 to 400 warheads, along with delivery systems via missiles, submarines, and aircraft. 

Despite this, Israel has never faced sanctions. When the NPT became permanent in 1995, regional states like Egypt agreed under a US promise that Israel would eventually join. It never did, nor was it pressured.

Since 1974, Iran, Egypt, and other regional powers have called for a nuclear-free Middle East. For over forty years, the UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly reaffirmed this stance annually. Iran has embraced this policy while Israel has consistently ignored or rejected it.

Western duplicity

As an NPT signatory, Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear weapons but retains the right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. Under strict IAEA oversight, Iran's nuclear facilities have been inspected thousands of times, with no conclusive evidence of weaponisation.

In 2015, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with six world powers, agreeing to limit uranium enrichment, reduce its nuclear stockpile, and allow rigorous inspections. Experts agree that the JCPOA extended Iran’s breakout time to over a year.

Allegations by Israel and various US officials that Iran is secretly pursuing a bomb remain unsubstantiated. Even the “Atomic Archive” obtained by Mossad in 2018 failed to provide definitive proof of an active weapons programme.

US National Intelligence Estimates from 2003 onward have concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and has not resumed it. 

As recently as March 2025, US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard affirmed that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. Iran has not developed or tested warheads, delivery systems, or detonation triggers—essential components of a weapons programme.

Crucially, Iran's opposition to nuclear weapons is rooted in religious and moral beliefs. The country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei has issued a written fatwa in 2003 declaring nuclear weapons forbidden in Islam. It has been restated repeatedly

The hypocrisy of the international system is stark. While Israel remains outside the NPT, maintains a secret nuclear arsenal, and faces no penalties, Iran, a transparent and cooperative NPT member, is subjected to sanctions and military threats.

There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Yet, the current Israeli-initiated aggression, supported by the US and its allies, may prompt a policy shift. 

The ironic lesson, one North Korea learned long ago, is that possessing nuclear weapons may be the only effective deterrent against regime change and foreign aggression.

Had Iran possessed a nuclear weapon, it is unlikely it would have been attacked or had its existence threatened. After decades of restraint, will the logic of nuclear deterrence finally prevail? That would depend on the outcome of the ongoing conflict.

If Israel’s objectives are defeated, it’s more likely that Iran will maintain its current posture as a non-nuclear state. 

Otherwise, states around the world will quickly learn that the best policy to survive in the current international system may be to possess the ultimate weapon.