Prepared by the researche : Omar J. Shawar… PhD Student in International Relations
Democratic Arabic Center
In an anarchic international system with no central authority, states rely on the balance of power to achieve security and stability. While this balance can sometimes foster stability, it may also escalate conflicts and fuel competition, risking catastrophic crises. The Middle East exemplifies such volatility, where mistrust among regional powers has created persistent security dilemmas and rising tensions. The Israeli-Iranian conflict highlights this complexity. Perceiving an existential threat from Israel, Iran seeks to bolster its strategic capabilities—developing ballistic missiles and strengthening regional alliances. Meanwhile, Israel views Iran as a major threat, employing strategies to curb its influence and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. This dynamic traps the region in a cycle of tension and conflict
Amid rapid changes in the Middle East, particularly after the collapse of the Assad regime and Iran’s declining influence, many foresee strategic shifts. Growing Israeli threats may push Tehran toward nuclear weapons—not just to boost military strength but to establish deterrence and reshape regional power dynamics. If Iran acquires nuclear capabilities, will this foster stability through balance or fuel its dominance and influence in the region?
John Mearsheimer, a leading thinker in International Relations, views Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as a strategic response to threats from major powers, particularly Israel and the U.S. He argues that while Iran enhances its deterrence through ballistic missiles, naval forces, and regional alliances, conventional weapons alone are insufficient against nuclear-armed states. Mearsheimer ultimately contends that true deterrence and strengthened regional influence can only be achieved through nuclear capability
The current circumstances in the Middle East today are already prompting serious consideration of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon as part of its future strategy. The region has witnessed major transformations recently, most notably extensive internal breakthroughs in Iran, which have contributed to strengthening security concerns at the national level. The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria is also a major blow to Iran’s strategy, as Tehran has lost one of its main allies in the region, which affected its influence in the Middle East in general. In addition, Hezbollah, Iran’s strategic ally in Lebanon, is suffering from a significant weakening after its war with Israel, which reduces Iran’s ability to direct its military and political influences in the region through this alliance. These transformations create a major security dilemma, as Iran finds itself facing increasing threats at home and abroad, which may force it to acquire nuclear weapons as a strategic means necessary to strengthen its national security and restore the balance of deterrence in the face of these growing security challenges
A number of prominent thinkers and strategists have addressed the issue of Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon and its implications for regional and international stability from multiple angles. Kenneth Waltz, one of the pioneers of the theory of structural realism, believes that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon may contribute to achieving the balance of power in the Middle East, reducing the likelihood of wars through mutual deterrence. Scott Sagan, on the other hand, opposes this proposition, warning that the spread of nuclear weapons in unstable regions may increase the risks of accidental use or miscalculation, given the weakness of command and control systems in countries new to the nuclear arena. Graham Allison warned that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon could lead to a regional arms race, making deterrence more fragile, and called for a diplomatic strategy that combines political and economic pressure with incentives to keep Iran within international agreements
The author believes that the future of security in the Middle East in the event of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon could go in two different directions, based on regional developments and international policies. There are a range of possible scenarios that may result from this development.
- The first scenario: in this scenario, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon could lead to the achievement of a “nuclear balance” in the region, in which countries stop military escalation for fear of nuclear consequences. This balance may contribute to relative stability, as major powers and regional allies avoid all-out Wars.
- Scenario two: on the other hand, Iran may exploit its nuclear superiority to strengthen its regional position and increase its influence, leading to an escalation of tensions in the region. This nuclear armament may motivate other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to seek to develop their own nuclear programs, opening the door to a nuclear arms race that further complicates the security situation in the Middle East.
It is difficult to predict the course Iran will take if it acquires nuclear weapons. However, Iran’s greatest challenge lies in its ability to obtain nuclear arms and establish a second-strike deterrent capability, as the United States and Israel remain determined to target Iran’s nuclear facilities should they confirm that Tehran is indeed advancing toward nuclear armament.
Iran’s strategic trajectory post-nuclear acquisition remains shrouded in uncertainty, making any forecasts speculative at best. Yet, Kenneth Waltz presented a compelling argument, asserting that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would mark a transitional phase toward a nuclear balance of power, fostering a degree of stability and restraint. His perspective was echoed by John Mearsheimer, who also underscored the stabilizing effects of nuclear deterrence.
The researcher contends that the likelihood of direct confrontation between Iran and its adversaries would significantly diminish under a nuclear equilibrium. However, this does not imply that Iran would scale back its regional influence; rather, its strategic posture may evolve in ways that further reshape the geopolitical landscape
