The US and Israel launched attacks on Iran, citing concerns over its nuclear program, while Tehran insists it has no intention of building a weapon. This confrontation spotlights a critical question: Who can have nuclear weapons? The two aggressors are among just nine nations armed with such capabilities, raising accusations of hypocrisy and double standards. Have their actions inadvertently increased the risks of more countries pursuing nuclear arms?
The Nuclear Club and Double Standards
The so-called “nuclear club”—a deceptively benign label for the nine states possessing weapons of mass destruction—includes the US and Israel, both of which have now bombed Iran to prevent it from joining their ranks.
Yet who decides who can have nuclear weapons? Israel, which neither confirms nor denies its own arsenal (estimated at dozens of warheads), attacks Iran, which claims its nuclear program is purely for energy. The irony is glaring.
Ceasefire, Unease, and Growing Risks
An uneasy peace now exists since US President Donald Trump broke a ceasefire with the help of Qatar. But there’s uneasiness on other fronts too—about the legality and dangers of two nuclear powers attacking another country and bombing its nuclear sites.
There’s also growing concern among those who argue that last week’s events could actually increase the risk of more countries seeking nuclear weapons of their own.
Who Controls the Nuclear Hierarchy?
The attack reignites debates about who can have nuclear weapons and who enforces the rules. So, who and what controls and rules the world’s nuclear arms hierarchy? What has the latest week done to efforts to maintain an equilibrium and for hopes to prevent nuclear weapons from proliferating? And what risks would possibly more volatile and extremist politics within some of the members of the nuclear club pose for the rest of the world?
Netanyahu’s Justification
Nearly a week after Israel and the US attacked Iran, powers in the region and wider world are weighing up the consequences. Both Israel and the US claim their attacks, including on nuclear facilities, were aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—something Iran firmly denies.
Netanyahu: “Let me say that I’ve been saying for 25 years, even as a civilian, you cannot let them have a nuclear weapon. And that’s what happened. It’s been obliterated. It would be years before they could ever get going. And I really think it’s probably the last thing they have to recover from a hell of a tough war. We removed two immediate threats to our existence—the threat of annihilation by nuclear bombs and the threat of annihilation by 20,000 ballistic missiles. If we had not acted now, the state of Israel would soon be facing the danger of annihilation.”
Breakdown in Talks
Israel began its attacks on Iran just before a new round of talks were due to take place between Iranian and US officials over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. Tehran insists it has the right to enrich uranium for its civilian nuclear program.
Iran’s parliament has since voted to halt its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. Some analysts say recent events will have increased the desire among some leaders in Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Although such arms are banned under a fatwa issued by the Supreme Leader, the attacks have changed the political dynamic in the Middle East and may also lead more countries to feel they need to develop such capabilities for their own security—and affect how the world’s existing nuclear powers might respond.
Who’s in the Nuclear Club?
So, who’s in the nuclear club? As of now, nine countries possess nuclear weapons. They are:
- United States
- Russia
- China
- France
- United Kingdom
- Pakistan
- India
- Israel
- North Korea
The first five are officially recognized under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1970. The remaining four—Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea—are not parties to the NPT or operate outside its framework.
The NPT and Its Limits
Now, we’ve probably all heard of the NPT, but who gets to decide who is allowed to produce a nuclear weapon and who isn’t?
The nuclear club has two or three tiers. The most powerful members are the US and Russia, who together hold about 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal. Then there are the three other permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, France, and the UK—who are also recognized as nuclear weapon states under the NPT.
The lower tier includes Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. These are considered de facto nuclear powers but are not officially recognized under the NPT.
Iran, by contrast, signed the NPT in 1970 as a non-nuclear weapon state, pledging not to develop or acquire nuclear arms and to allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Iran’s Nuclear Record and IAEA Oversight
In 2011, the IAEA reported that there were 12 different aspects of Iran’s nuclear program that had not been declared and had possible military dimensions. These concerns were later closed in December 2015 as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
However, in 2024, the IAEA’s Board of Governors—pressured by France, Germany, and the UK—requested a new comprehensive report. The Director-General raised renewed issues, and the tension has escalated since.
Historic Inequality in Nuclear Governance
Much of this disparity stems from history. When the NPT was signed, certain countries already had nuclear weapons and were grandfathered in. Others developed their arsenals later, outside the treaty’s framework, and were never formally accepted as nuclear states.
Iran remains a key case because it signed the treaty and, for many years, was verified as being in compliance. Although recent breaches have raised concerns, the IAEA still confirmed as recently as May 28th that 48.1 kg of highly enriched uranium at Fordo was verified and under safeguards.
Who Decides Who Gets the Bomb?
Why have two nuclear-armed states—the US and Israel—been allowed to tell Iran, a signatory to the NPT, that it cannot even enrich uranium for peaceful purposes? Especially when Israel itself is not a party to the NPT?
Many argue this is a case of hypocrisy and double standards. Donald Trump’s blunt foreign policy style made these inconsistencies more obvious. The US effectively acts as both judge and jury when it comes to nuclear enforcement. Israel is treated differently, even though its own military history and nuclear ambiguity are well-known.
Iran’s Regional Isolation and Strategic Lessons
Iran’s leadership is also aware of how nuclear disarmament played out for others. Libya gave up its program and was later attacked. Iraq’s nuclear facilities were bombed by Israel. Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers—Israel, Pakistan, India, China.
Many in Iran now regret signing the NPT at all. Israel didn’t. Neither did Pakistan or North Korea. So why, many ask, should Iran be the exception?
JCPOA Breakdown and Western Failures
Despite Iran fulfilling its JCPOA obligations from 2016 to mid-2019—as verified by the IAEA—the West failed to lift sanctions or meet its commitments. After the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018, Iran slowly began to move beyond the agreement’s limits.
During this time, seven Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated, and Iran’s nuclear facilities faced repeated sabotage and cyberattacks. In response, Iran increased its uranium enrichment levels not to weaponize, but to raise its bargaining position in future talks.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration failed to revive the JCPOA during its term. That missed opportunity has now given way to airstrikes, more hostility, and greater uncertainty.
Is the NPT’s legitimacy falling apart?
Has the treaty’s legitimacy begun to unravel—given that a nation like the US, a founding signatory, can target another signatory’s nuclear infrastructure apparently without consequence? Does the system need overhauling? And who would oversee that?
North Korea was a signatory to the NPT. It did have inspectors. When it chose to go all the way nuclear, it kicked inspectors out. That was a major signal to the international community that North Korea was bucking its obligations and heading the other way.
Iran has had the option all along to do exactly that. They could’ve kicked inspectors out. We’ve seen the US in recent years leave plenty of treaties. Iran could have done the same—left the treaty and taken another path. But Iran has chosen to stay within the limits.
US intelligence and Israeli intelligence both continue to say Iran hasn’t made the decision to cross that threshold and build a nuclear weapon. So, many view Iran’s position as one of strategic restraint—negotiating, deterring further aggression from the US and Israel.
But this kind of action from nuclear states does make other countries sit up and take notice—and question who can have nuclear weapons and who gets punished for merely being suspected.
The TPNW
In recent years, it’s not just about countries wanting nuclear weapons, though that’s always a consideration and a very expensive one. We’ve also seen nations band together and sign something called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—the TPNW.
A number of nuclear have-nots have taken notice of how countries with the most resources and privilege were the ones able to compete in the nuclear arms race and essentially lorded it over the rest. So these nations came together and signed a treaty that would essentially ban nuclear weapons.
This kind of ban has precedent in other weapons of mass destruction. It might seem unrealistic now, but it could happen. The problem is, nuclear states like the US and Russia have refused to even come to the table to talk about the TPNW. That only fuels the feeling that these powers aren’t serious about their disarmament obligations under the NPT—raising the question once again: who can have nuclear weapons, and who gets lectured for even dreaming about them?
Exceptionalism and impunity: the case of Israel
Could it be argued that if there’s any country in the world that shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons—picking up on what you were saying earlier—it’s Israel? Israel has defied all international conventions, rejected calls to join the treaty, and barred the IAEA from inspecting its nuclear sites. How is this allowed?
Well, it’s allowed because the United States backs Israel to the hilt. It’s astonishing. For months now, the world has watched what Israel has done in Gaza and now the West Bank. Mothers killed. Children killed. Harvard University’s latest report gives a figure of 377,000 Palestinians killed over this period.
And the Europeans watch. They sleepwalk to their offices, get their orders from Washington. This symbiosis between Washington and Israel can be broken. It has been in the past with tougher US presidents. Even Trump ordered a ceasefire once. But not now. Not while these massacres are taking place.
This is a special status awarded to Israel, rooted in what happened in the Second World War. Yes, it was horrific—but it wasn’t the fault of the Arabs, or the Iranians, let alone the Palestinians. Yet the narrative today positions Palestinians as the central enemy.
What we’re seeing is a denial of the fact that Palestinians are the indirect victims of the Judeocide—the Holocaust carried out by elements of Western civilization against the Jewish people in Europe. No one in the East did that. It was done in the West. And now the East continues to be punished.
Netanyahu, a shameless war criminal, is collaborating with all this. It will end badly. And at its core, it’s a story of who can have nuclear weapons and act with impunity—and who pays the price for others’ historical sins.
Nuclear deterrence or disaster?
In Vienna, if more nations begin to feel that their security depends on possessing a nuclear deterrent—think the Baltic states, or countries that are losing faith in US security guarantees—what are the dangers?
Could the recent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities end up encouraging exactly what it was meant to prevent? Could Iran now be even more convinced that building a nuclear weapon, and quickly, is the only way to guarantee its security?
Well, the fact that a nuclear weapons state under the NPT and a non-nuclear weapons state outside the NPT joined forces to bomb nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards in a non-nuclear weapon state—that has now severely threatened the credibility and efficacy of both the IAEA safeguard system and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty itself.
Not long ago, the president of Poland expressed a desire to have their own nuclear weapons. Last year, the president of South Korea said the same. In the past, figures in Japan have also floated the idea. There’s now a growing sense of insecurity, partly due to doubts around US assurances to NATO countries, but also because of rising global instability.
And underneath that insecurity lies the real debate—who can have nuclear weapons, and who cannot, regardless of treaties or intentions?
After Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor in 1981, Iraq went on to launch an official nuclear weapons acquisition program. So now, it’s quite likely that Iranian policymakers—especially the hardliners—are rethinking their options.
They’ll say: we cooperated with the IAEA for 23 years. The Iran nuclear file began in August 2002. We stayed in the treaty, we endured sanctions and attacks, we tried to cooperate. And what did we get? Bombings. Assassinated scientists. Military officials killed. Civilians with no involvement—murdered in their homes.
This will be on everyone’s mind at the next non-proliferation treaty conference in New York next year. And there’s heavy skepticism about how it’s going to unfold, especially when no one clearly answers the question: who can have nuclear weapons and get away with it?
Who’s most likely to go nuclear next?
Poland, Japan, South Korea—they’ve all considered it, even discussed it publicly. The Baltic states are on that list too. But remember, it’s a long and very expensive process.
Building a nuclear weapon isn’t just a security move—it places a country outside the NPT, or forces it to leave. That carries huge strategic and diplomatic consequences. And every nation knows, in the back of its mind, there’s a geopolitical price to pay depending on who can have nuclear weapons and who dares to pursue them.
Conclusion
Is the world a safer place after the US and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities—or a more dangerous one?
Much more dangerous. It’s totally destabilized now.
If the US greenlights giving nuclear weapons to the Baltic states or Poland, it’s basically inviting a war with Russia. A nuclear third world war. And it will happen if this recklessness continues.
Countries capable of building nuclear weapons today? Japan and Germany, the two defeated nations of WWII. Japan actually suffered nukes directly. But even their militaries now, are nearly ready.
A unified Korean peninsula could be a nuclear state, which is one reason the US has cooled on Korean unity. Because it would become a nuclear power.
The Iranians would be crazy to trust the West anymore. After what’s been done to them—being targeted, isolated, punished for cooperating—how could they?
The Middle East, by and large, is occupied now. Voluntarily, yes, by their own governments. And the Israelis are given a green light to do whatever they want—kill, destroy, burn.
This isn’t sustainable. It’s going to lead to a huge crisis before this century ends, all built on the crumbling foundation of who can have nuclear weapons and who is forever denied.