Will an Iran War Trigger a Nuclear Race in the Middle East?

The nuclear threat in the Middle East has increased due to the Iran war, and not just because of attacks on Israeli and Iranian nuclear facilities. Other countries may also believe they are safer with nuclear weapons.

There's little doubt that the nuclear threat in the Middle East has increased during the ongoing conflict.

In the war that began in late February, when the United States (US) and Israel launched attacks on Iran, nuclear facilities in both Iran and Israel were targeted.

US President Donald Trump said the war on Iran was launched to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, experts believe this move could backfire.

Nuclear weapons have long been considered a deterrent. Logically, a country with nuclear weapons is more difficult to attack because the risks are too great for an opponent.

Observers often cite the case of North Korea. The country has developed nuclear weapons, which, some argue, make its regime untouchable.

Ukraine, on the other hand, serves as a counterexample. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world, in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK. It is now believed that if Ukraine had kept these weapons, Russia would likely have been less willing to invade.

There's little doubt that the nuclear threat in the Middle East has increased during the ongoing conflict.

In the war that began in late February, when the United States (US) and Israel launched attacks on Iran, nuclear facilities in both Iran and Israel were targeted.

US President Donald Trump said the war on Iran was launched to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, experts believe this move could backfire.

Nuclear weapons have long been considered a deterrent. Logically, a country with nuclear weapons is more difficult to attack because the risks are too great for an opponent.

Observers often cite the case of North Korea. The country has developed nuclear weapons, which, some argue, makes its regime untouchable.

Ukraine, on the other hand, serves as a counterexample. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world, in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK. It is now believed that if Ukraine had kept these weapons, Russia would likely have been less willing to invade.

"There are a number of factors that will push the Gulf states toward nuclear weapons," said Kelsey Davenport, Director of Non-Proliferation Policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association.

The Gulf states are in a difficult position, caught between the power ambitions of Iran and Israel, and are beginning to doubt the extent to which the United States can guarantee their security.

"However, it's unlikely that these states will immediately race to develop a bomb. The technical and political obstacles are enormous," Davenport continued.

Gulf leaders are also likely to wait for the conflict to end to see how the Iranian regime and its nuclear program are faring. "But clearly, this conflict will push the question of the need for nuclear weapons for security."

Who wants nuclear weapons?

Saudi Arabia began taking initial steps toward the possibility of nuclear latency last year. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman previously stated that if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia should have one too. After his visit to the US in November, he reportedly brought home a cooperation agreement that would allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium.

Such a deal would require prior approval from the US Congress, said Nour Eid, a Paris-based independent researcher who studies Middle East nuclear ambitions.

Nearly all of the 26 nuclear cooperation agreements the US has, covering some 155 countries, including some in Europe, require an "additional protocol" with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which allows for tighter oversight of a country's nuclear activities. While not officially confirmed, the 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia would likely require only a bilateral safeguards agreement, Eid told DW.

"This breaks with all precedent," Robert Kelley, a former director at the IAEA, told Bloomberg this week. "The idea that the administration is prepared to give Saudi Arabia the same capabilities that were the reason for the bombing of Iran seems hypocritical."