Why Iran’s Nuclear Programme Scares the World, But Israel’s Doesn’t?

By Aftab Alam, New Age Islam 23 June 2025 The long-standing question of why nuclear weapons are considered safe in the hands of some states but viewed as a threat when held by others has resurfaced with renewed urgency following recent U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran. These strikes caused significant damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, and reportedly killed several senior military commanders and nuclear scientists. Israel defended the operation by asserting that Tehran was dangerously close to developing nuclear weapons and posed an existential threat. According to Israeli officials, the strikes were a necessary pre-emptive measure to avert that outcome. The United States President Donald J. Trump also said that Iran ‘can’t have a nuclear weapon. We’re not going to allow that.’ He further added ‘You can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.’ French President Emmanuel echoed the same view ‘Iran’s nuclear programme is a threat to global security.’ Interestingly, Israel, the United States, and France want to prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons that they themselves already possess. Is the perceived threat of a nuclear weapon rooted in its intrinsic destructive capacity, or in the identity and intentions of its possessor? The West’s hypocrisy doesn’t just simply whisper—it screams. While Iran’s nuclear ambitions have drawn relentless scrutiny, sanctions, and threats of military action especially since 2000s, Israel’s long-standing, albeit undeclared, nuclear arsenal is met with silence or tacit acceptance. The West generally turns a blind eye to Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal while crying wolf over Iran’s nuclear program. This strategic selectivity of the West dangerously undermines the global nuclear order. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, falling within its rights under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to which it is a signatory. Even Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a fatwa (a religious edict) in 2003, declaring nuclear weapons as forbidden under Islam. More recently in March 2025, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that multiple U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that not only Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing, and that Supreme Leader Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program that was suspended back in 2003. Nonetheless, Israel and Western governments led by the United States have accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons capability under the guise of a civilian energy program. Interestingly, unlike Iran, Israel is widely believed to have at least an arsenal of at least 80 to 90 nuclear warheads since 1966 and enough plutonium to produce around 200 more nuclear weapons along with second-strike capability via submarines and aircraft. Some experts believe that Israel’s nuclear weapons programme is also expanding. However, Israel maintains a policy of opacity regarding its nuclear capabilities and refuses to sign the NPT. Consequently, Israel does not allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities, including the secretly built Dimona nuclear facility aided by France, long suspected to be the center of its weapons programme, in violation of international law. Despite this, there is no international pressure, diplomatic or otherwise, on Israel to disarm or even to acknowledge its nuclear status. Unlike Iran, Israel has not faced sanctions, investigations, or inspections. Instead, it continues to receive substantial military and diplomatic support from the United States and Western allies, often with explicit guarantees for its qualitative military edge over regional adversaries. This contrast in treatment exposes the structural inequality that pervades the global nuclear order. Proponents of this asymmetry argue that Israel is a responsible and rational actor, deeply integrated with the West, and thus unlikely to use nuclear weapons irresponsibly. Iran, in contrast, is viewed as a revolutionary regime that supports non-state militias across the region, engages in anti-Western rhetoric, and poses an existential threat to Israel. In this view, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would not only embolden its aggressive posture but also destabilize the broader Middle East by triggering a regional arms race, prompting countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to seek similar capabilities. This logic, however, is deeply problematic. First, it is not the weapons themselves that are treated as the threat, but the identity of the possessor. This undermines the principle of non-proliferation as a universal norm and transforms it into an instrument of strategic containment, deployed selectively against adversaries while exempting allies. Second, the idea of responsible versus irresponsible nuclear actors is inherently subjective and shaped by geopolitical interests rather than objective criteria. Moreover, this narrative ignores the long history of Israel’s repeated military interventions in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, and its continued occupation of Palestinian territories which has been declared by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to be illegal under international law. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged “war crimes”. Israel is also not complying with the ICJ binding orders to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The selective application of non-proliferation norms has significant consequences. Regionally, it deepens perceptions of injustice and double standards, fuelling resentment among Arab and Muslim populations and delegitimizing the international order in their eyes. It also provides Iran with a rationale for its nuclear program: if Israel is allowed to possess nuclear weapons with impunity, then Iran too has a strategic incentive to pursue similar capabilities for deterrence. Furthermore, the uncritical support for Israel’s strategic superiority emboldens its military actions, including targeted strikes against Iranian infrastructure. These actions, often carried out with impunity, increase the risk of wider conflict and miscalculation. The recent Israeli airstrike deep into Iranian territory, targeting nuclear and military assets, has already sparked regional tensions. Tehran’s vow to retaliate, coupled with growing public anger across the Islamic world, signals a potentially dangerous spiral. If the international community seeks a stable and peaceful Middle East, it must abandon its selective approach to nuclear governance. This requires a candid acknowledgment of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the inclusion of all regional states in a new framework for arms control and confidence-building. The refusal to acknowledge or address Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the outrage over Iran’s program erodes trust in the global nuclear order making it increasingly difficult to garner support for non-proliferation initiatives, especially in the Global South. While politically challenging, the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone would represent a principled and inclusive approach to regional security. We have to move beyond the deep-seated political biases that render some nuclear weapons tolerable and others intolerable. ----- Aftab Alam is a professor at Aligarh Muslim University and heads its Strategic and Security Studies Programme. URl: https://www.newageislam.com/current-affairs/iran-nuclear-programme-world-b-israel/d/135953 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism