Nuclear Dilemma in West Asia

     COMMENTARY

      By Arpith John Raj

The ongoing scenarios in the Middle East provide several insightful and thought-provoking elements regarding power dynamics. When we analyse from day one (15^th June 2025) of the Israel vs Iran conflict, which is a week and a half back, Israel's drone attacks were held under the complete domination of Iran’s ‘air space' by the Israeli forces. In contrast, Iran's missiles find it difficult to penetrate Israel's territory, except for some hypersonic barrages, which caused a small number of casualties in Israel. As the days progressed, the control over the Iranian airspace gradually progressed. Therefore, the US wanted to ensure that Iran did not have control over its sky and could probably use Israel's strikes on Tehran as a test dose prior to its intervention to ensure maximum damage to Iran. While Trump offered peace deals under the label "complete surrender" of Iran prior to its air raids, it could be a last resort to Tehran to avert further escalations, causing distress in the region. Iran's response is justified as such a sovereign state; Iran had absolute authority to defend its territorial integrity from international anarchy and rogues of other state and non-state actors. Israel targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities is not new; it is an act of play pursued by Israel to destroy nuclear facilities in Iran and eliminate Iran's elite nuclear scientists.  

The flawed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran Nuclear deal, further entrenched the divide between the US and its allies with Iran. Since the US withdrawal from the deal, Iran has resumed its nuclear operations, thereby creating a sense of security dilemma for its rivals in the region and the West. Israel, being the most prominent ally of the West in the Middle East, was turned into an instrumental state in tackling this security dilemma, culminating in the recent strikes Israel made into Tehran targeting key nuclear infrastructures. The Israeli Air raids had a significant impact on Iran's air defense and nuclear facilities, and the elimination of key IRGA military commanders threw Iran into a state of chaos. At that moment, the US entered the theatre, and all of a sudden, the US used their fierce B-2 stealth aircraft (perhaps as a precautionary measure to their speculation that Iran had a plan B for their skies) to carry out coordinated and targeted strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.  We then witnessed Mr. Trump claiming that key nuclear facilities in Iran had been precisely struck and destroyed. Despite this claim, I was constantly pondering the need for an impact analysis of the US strikes. The first thing that crossed my mind was a statement given by the International Atomic Energy Agency that "there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels after the recent attacks on three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the Fordow uranium enrichment site." This could be possible in two ways: either the US fiercest Bunker Busters had been faulty (but the possibility is likely below 3 %), or Iran had speculated and judged the US intervention and was prepared for it. Satellite images that detect unusual movement activities near nuclear sites can further validate this claim.

If so, US intervention, to some extent, will not be as successful as Mr. Trump claims it will be. The intervention likely caused Iran to be more adamant in its Foreign Policy towards Israel. Iran used its powerful hypersonics against Israel and struck precisely at key Israeli targets. Making this escalation worse. The US intervention has fuelled the crisis to another level. This was validated by the act of the Parliament of Iran, which passed the order to close down the geostrategic Strait of Hormuz - a lifeline in global oil exports. The closure of Hormuz could create immense shock waves and market fluctuations in various industries worldwide, thus exacerbating the impact of the Israel-Iran conflict into a global crisis. There is no doubt that the US wanted to secure the Sea Lanes of Communications in the Persian Gulf, and the closure of Hormuz would likely result in a more contentious military escalation at sea by Israel and the US against Iran, which would destabilise the region. 

When we analyse the Foreign Policy of the United States under Trump 2.0, there is a clear vision of a shift in its policy strategies from its predecessor's policy framework. It had been much more rigorous and commanding in tone, which would either trigger a responsive attack from the opponent or else, be compromised to a deal through coercive diplomacy. This trend is visible in almost all engagements of the Trump administration. The US threatens opponents to see the worst possible situation they could incur if a deal with the US is not made. On the other hand, many states, especially smaller ones that if they do not have the might to challenge the US, would probably surrender to avoid losses and worse scenarios which could even challenge their existence. Meanwhile, those states that decide to step up against the US would lead to intense and more violent confrontations where both sides could incur losses, thereby destabilising the states both internally and externally, if any of them had an edge over the other, creating the sense of the 'Thucydides Trap'. Here, Iran chose to step up against the US, thereby pushing the crisis to the extreme, causing uncertainty of security and stability, and creating an environment of 'Brinkmanship' where everything is unpredictable and uncertain. This, in turn, is a far more dangerous strategy in foreign policy, which can cause immense chaos if the speculations are not rightly judged.