Strikes by the US and Israel on Iran’s nuclear installations may reinforce Tehran’s determination to seek a nuclear weapon and could result in its exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2003, North Korea exited the treaty and subsequently developed a nuclear arsenal. It is currently estimated that North Korea possesses as many as 50 warheads.
The military actions taken by the United States and Israel against Iran raise significant concerns, particularly regarding the dubious legal justifications offered by both nations.
Even if these strikes inflict substantial damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, it is likely to reinforce Iran’s determination to pursue nuclear armament.
Should Iran act on its threat to withdraw from the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), it would severely undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation framework.
In a decade marked by international security challenges, this situation could represent the most critical threat. Is there still an opportunity to avert this outcome?
A treaty in jeopardy
In May 2015, I participated in the five-year review conference of the NPT. Delegates engaged in extensive discussions over a draft outcome for several weeks, ultimately leaving without any resolution, as has occurred previously. Delegates from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada obstructed the final agreement to prevent the inclusion of language that would require Israel to attend a disarmament conference.
In 2022, Russia similarly blocked progress in response to language addressing its unlawful occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
Currently, in the latest challenge to the NPT, Israel and the United States have conducted airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, ostensibly to uphold a treaty that neither party adheres to.
When the treaty was established in 1968, it permitted the five nuclear-armed nations at that time – the United States, Soviet Union, France, United Kingdom, and China – to join, provided they committed to refraining from transferring weapons or materials to other countries and to disarmament.
All other signatories were required to vow never to develop nuclear weapons. Newer nuclear states were not allowed to join unless they renounced their arsenals.
Israel opted not to join, having developed its own undeclared nuclear stockpile by the late 1960s. India, Pakistan, and South Sudan have also never signed the treaty; North Korea was a member but withdrew in 2003. Presently, only South Sudan is without nuclear weapons.
To ensure the enforceability of obligations and enhance protections against the diversion of nuclear materials to non-nuclear weapon states, member nations were subsequently mandated to endorse the IAEA Additional Protocol. This accord granted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) extensive authority to examine a nation’s nuclear facilities and identify any infractions.
The IAEA was the first to raise alarms regarding Iran’s troubling uranium enrichment activities in 2003. Just prior to Israel’s recent military actions, the agency also indicated that Iran was violating its commitments under the NPT for the first time in twenty years.
The NPT is arguably the most universal, significant, and effective security treaty globally, yet it is paradoxically susceptible.
The foundational consensus of the treaty has been compromised by the inability of the five nuclear-armed states to disarm as mandated, as well as by the failure to prevent North Korea from establishing a now formidable nuclear arsenal.
North Korea exited the treaty in 2003, conducted a weapons test in 2006, and currently possesses an estimated 50 warheads.
Iran may be the next in line.
What are the next steps?
Iran contends that Israel’s military actions have undermined the credibility of the IAEA, as Israel utilized the IAEA’s recent report on Iran as justification for its strikes, thereby removing the issue from the jurisdiction of the UN Security Council.
In response, the IAEA has upheld a principled stance, condemning both the US and Israeli military actions.
Iran has retaliated with missile strikes targeting both Israel and a US base in Qatar. Furthermore, it promptly declared its intention to withdraw from the NPT.
On June 23, a committee within the Iranian parliament also sanctioned a bill that would completely halt Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, which includes ceasing inspections and the submission of reports to the agency.
Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, stated that the US strikes: […] inflicted a fundamental and irreparable damage to the international non-proliferation regime, conclusively demonstrating that the current NPT framework has been rendered ineffective.
Even if Israel and the United States view their bombing campaign as successful, it has almost certainly strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to develop a weapon. The airstrikes may merely postpone the emergence of an Iranian bomb by a few years.
Iran has two potential avenues to achieve this goal. The slower route would involve reinstating its enrichment activities and acquiring nuclear implosion designs, which are capable of producing extremely destructive weapons, from either Russia or North Korea.
Alternatively, Russia might provide Iran with some of its weaponry. This scenario should raise significant concerns, especially considering Moscow’s series of withdrawals from essential arms control agreements over the past decade.
The development of an Iranian bomb could prompt other regional states, particularly Saudi Arabia, to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as they would suddenly confront a new threat to their security.
Reasons for Iran’s potential pursuit of a bomb
Iran’s backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Assad regime in Syria undoubtedly illustrates its role as a perilous international actor. Additionally, Iranian leaders have consistently employed alarming rhetoric regarding the destruction of Israel.
Regardless of how distasteful these statements may be, Israeli and American conservatives have misinterpreted Iran’s intentions in seeking nuclear capabilities.
Israel perceives an Iranian bomb as an existential threat to its existence, particularly in light of Iran’s declarations to annihilate it. However, this perspective overlooks the reality that Israel already possesses a formidable (albeit undeclared) nuclear deterrent.
While Israeli concerns regarding an Iranian bomb should not be dismissed, other analysts, including myself, interpret Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability more as a means to establish deterrence against potential military actions from Israel and the United States, thereby safeguarding their regime.
The Iranian populace was deeply affected by Iraq’s invasion in 1980 and subsequently by the US-led ousting of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. This ongoing conflict with Israel and the US will likely have an even more profound impact on them.
Last week, I believed that if the Israeli bombing were to halt, a renewed diplomatic initiative aimed at bringing Iran into compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and persuading it to abandon its nuclear program might have a viable chance.
Nonetheless, the strikes conducted by the US may have effectively eliminated that possibility for many years to come. By that time, the harm inflicted on the nonproliferation regime could become irreversible.
Anthony Burke, Professor of Environmental Politics & International Relations, UNSW Sydney
This article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Please refer to the original article.
