Nukes or be bombed: How US and Israeli strikes on Iran legitimised nuclear weapons

In mid-June 2025, tensions in the Middle East took a sharp and dangerous turn. On 13 June, Israel launched a targeted airstrike inside Iranian territory. Just days later, On 21–22 June, the United States joined in—striking Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

The justification was predictable: prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. But the deeper, unintended effect was far more consequential. These strikes did not dissuade nuclear ambitions, they rationalised them. For Iran, and for many others watching, the lesson is becoming impossible to ignore: in the absence of nuclear deterrence, no nation is safe.

A strike meant to prevent what it may have justified

Iran has no confirmed nuclear weapon. It remains a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and its Supreme Leader upholds a religious fatwa banning weapons of mass destruction. And yet, it was bombed twice by two nuclear-armed powers acting outside international authorisation.

US President Donald Trump praised the airstrikes as a “spectacular success,” claiming Iran’s nuclear sites had been “completely obliterated.” He later warned Tehran that “many more targets” were on the list. The message was clear: disarmament does not protect you, compliance is not enough.

This logic undermines decades of diplomatic effort. It creates a world where restraint is punished and power, once again, becomes the only guarantee of sovereignty.

READ: Trump says US conducted ‘very successful’ strikes on 3 Iranian nuclear sites

Psychological warfare by other means

Iran’s nuclear program has long existed under scrutiny. But what made these June strikes different was their psychological impact. They exposed the limits of legal and moral arguments against nuclear arms. Iran’s leaders, who had once proudly cited religious and diplomatic justifications for restraint, now face a stark reality: none of that stopped the bombs.

What does this teach other countries? That not having a bomb makes you more likely to be attacked. That treaties, religious principles, and inspections offer no real protection when a hegemon decides it’s time to strike.

The effect is contagious. From the Middle East to South Asia and beyond, regional powers are watching and reconsidering whether restraint is still a viable strategy.

The double standard at the heart of the crisis

The United States and Israel both maintain robust nuclear arsenals. Yet they reserve for themselves the right to decide who else may or may not acquire such weapons. This is the structural hypocrisy embedded in the non-proliferation regime: one rule for the powerful, another for the rest.

Israel has never acknowledged its nuclear arsenal, but it is widely believed to possess over 90 nuclear weapons, including submarine-launched capabilities. Meanwhile, the United States maintains one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals—3,700 warheads as of January 2025, with 1,770 actively deployed across land, air, and sea platforms. Yet the US continues to frame its Middle East policy as one of containing proliferation, even as it shields Israel from scrutiny and excludes its arsenal from all regional non-proliferation discussions.

Instead of discouraging proliferation, these strikes affirm its necessity, at least in the eyes of those who feel increasingly exposed.

READ: Iran hits back at Israel after US attacks nuclear site, many casualties

Proliferation as the new rationality

The true damage of the US-Israeli attacks may not be measured in craters or casualties, but in strategic shifts. Iran still publicly rejects the pursuit of nuclear arms, but its political calculus has shifted. What once seemed like a dangerous or immoral option now looks like the only way to ensure national survival.

This shift is not limited to Tehran. In Riyadh, Ankara, Cairo, and even in capitals far beyond the Middle East, the idea of nuclear deterrence is gaining appeal, not out of aggression, but out of fear.

The logic is harsh, but persuasive. When a non-nuclear state is bombed by nuclear ones, what incentive remains for restraint? For many nations, the answer is shifting from faith in treaties to faith in deterrence.

The stated goal of the strikes was to stop Iran from going nuclear. Instead, they may have sent a clearer message to the world; only nuclear powers are safe.

This is the new strategic reality in a world where great powers strike with impunity, the nuke become more than a weapon, it becomes a shield.

And so, far from halting proliferation, these strikes may mark the beginning of a new era; one where more nations quietly, urgently, and rationally decide to pursue nuclear arms; not as a threat, but as a shield.

READ: Iran vows to pursue legal action after US attacked 3 nuclear sites

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.