THE recent airstrikes by the United States targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan have reignited global concerns about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. While analysts debate whether or not Iran’s programme has been set back by months or years, a more pressing question looms: will Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions? The most likely answer is in the negative.

Iran regards Israel as its primary adversary, and the former’s nuclear aspirations appear to be driven largely by deterrence. Despite a religious edict in Iran forbidding the production of nuclear weapons, and Tehran’s repeated insistence that its programme is peaceful, it perceives a nuclear-armed Israel, backed rather unconditionally by the US, as an existential threat.

Although Israel has never officially acknowledged its nuclear arsenal, it is widely believed to possess dozens of warheads. In such an asymmetric en-vironment, Iran views nuclear capability as a strategic necessity, one aimed at establishing a degree of parity.

Expecting Iran to just meekly accept Western-imposed setbacks to its nuclear programme, while ignoring Israel’s arsenal, is short-sighted. This approach may offer temporary relief, but cannot deliver a lasting solution. Feeling strategically vulnerable and unfairly singled out, Iran is likely to persist; covertly, if necessary.

The recent bombings may have delayed Iran’s technical progress, but they have not altered its strategic calculus. Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear capability is deeply embedded in its national security doctrine, and the scientific knowledge behind it cannot be erased by airstrikes.

For lasting peace, the international community must look beyond containment and coercion. The root cause of tension is the region’s nuclear imbalance. Only when Israel’s undeclared arsenal is subjected to international scrutiny, and ultimately dismantled, can Iran be expected to halt its nuclear ambitions. Such a step would lend moral authority to efforts pressuring Iran to abandon its programme.

Moreover, rectifying this imbalance could pave the way for a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone; a proposal repeatedly raised at the United Nations, but consistently blocked primarily due to Israeli resistance and Western double standards.

Enduring peace cannot be built on selective enforcement. As long as one state is permitted to maintain a clandestine arsenal while others are penalised for seeking strategic parity, instability will persist. Disarmament must be universal to be meaningful and sustainable. The path to durable peace lies not in airstrikes or sanctions, but in fairness, dialogue and mutual security guarantees. The sooner the international community recognises this fact, the better it surely would be.

Ahmad Fakir Muhammad
Karachi

Published in Dawn, July 8th, 2025