For decades, U.S. political leaders have repeated a single mantra with near-religious fervor: Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. This claim is presented not as an argument but as a self-evident truth, a moral axiom beyond debate. Iran, Americans are told, is irrational, dangerous, theocratic—one of “the bad guys.” On this basis, war is normalized, assassination is openly discussed, and preemptive violence is framed as prudence.
Yet this narrative collapses the moment a single, unavoidable fact is placed on the record: Israel already possesses nuclear weapons—and not a small number of them.
This is the central contradiction of modern U.S. Middle East policy, and it is no longer defensible.
Exhibit A: Israel’s Undeclared Nuclear Arsenal
Independent estimates place Israel’s nuclear stockpile at at least 90 warheads, with sufficient fissile material to produce hundreds more. Former President Jimmy Carter—who had direct access to classified intelligence—put the figure closer to 300. These weapons are not symbolic. They are deployable via U.S.-supplied aircraft, submarine-launched platforms, and intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the Jericho III, whose range, by Israeli officials’ own admission, can reach “every point in the world.”
Israel refuses to confirm or deny this arsenal under a policy of so-called “strategic ambiguity.” In practice, this means no transparency, no inspections, and no accountability. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, defies repeated U.N. resolutions calling for oversight, and bars the International Atomic Energy Agency from inspecting the Dimona nuclear facility.
This alone would be enough to trigger sanctions against nearly any other country.
Instead, Israel receives billions in U.S. military aid.
Exhibit B: Violations of U.S. Law—Ignored by Design
Under the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the United States is prohibited from providing military assistance to nations that develop nuclear weapons outside the NPT framework. The statute is explicit. The violation is ongoing. And yet, for more than half a century, every administration—Democratic and Republican alike—has chosen willful non-enforcement.
Why? Because enforcing the law would require confronting Israel.
Congressional analysis has admitted as much, concluding that U.S. leaders have decided it is preferable to abandon their own legal standards than to risk diplomatic friction with a favored ally. This is not statesmanship. It is abdication.
Exhibit C: Proliferation—Israel’s Actual Record
Iran is routinely accused of potentially sharing nuclear technology with allied militias. Whether that fear is justified is debatable. What is not debatable is that Israel has already attempted nuclear proliferation.
Declassified documents reveal that in the 1970s, Israeli officials—most notably then-Defense Minister Shimon Peres—offered nuclear-capable Jericho missiles to apartheid South Africa, contingent on nuclear warheads. South Africa, in turn, supplied Israel with yellowcake uranium, directly facilitating Israel’s weapons program.
This was not speculation. It was negotiation.
Israel also likely conducted a joint nuclear test with apartheid South Africa in 1979—the Vela Incident—possibly in violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. These are not the actions of a uniquely “responsible” nuclear steward. They are the actions of a state willing to flout international norms when convenient.
Exhibit D: Escalation, Lawlessness, and Open Nuclear Threats
Since October 7, Israel’s conduct has deteriorated further—crossing from aggressive to openly rogue.
Gaza has been subjected to collective punishment on a scale now recognized by major human rights organizations as genocidal.
Israeli officials face active warrants from the International Criminal Court—which they openly defy.
Israel has carried out illegal strikes on foreign diplomatic facilities, mass bombardments of Syria, territorial seizures, and cross-border terror operations.
And now, Israeli leaders are publicly discussing nuclear use.
This is not fringe chatter. Members of the governing coalition have explicitly called for nuclear strikes on Gaza. Others have endorsed the doctrine known as the “Samson Option”—a strategy of disproportionate nuclear retaliation against civilian targets in the event of a perceived existential threat.
This doctrine is not defensive deterrence. It is nuclear blackmail.
When ministers openly muse about “doomsday weapons,” and remain in office afterward, the risk is no longer theoretical.
Exhibit E: The Man With the Button
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not a stabilizing force. He is an indicted politician fighting for political survival, facing corruption charges at home and war crimes accusations abroad. His record includes empowering Hamas to fracture Palestinian unity, dismantling judicial independence, and extending conflict to delay accountability.
History teaches that the most dangerous people to entrust with nuclear weapons are leaders who equate personal survival with national crisis. Netanyahu fits that profile precisely.
The Verdict: The Double Standard Is the Danger
The greatest threat to global security is not the hypothetical possibility that Iran might one day obtain a nuclear weapon. It is the existing reality of an unregulated, uninspected, increasingly unstable nuclear-armed state—protected by U.S. power and exempt from international law.
There are only two logically consistent positions:
Either Israel has no right to nuclear weapons, and must disarm under international supervision—just as Iran is demanded to do;
Or Iran has the same right Israel already exercises, and the moral argument for war collapses entirely.
The first option is the only survivable one.
A nuclear-weapon-free Middle East is not radical. It already exists in Africa and South America. Iran has endorsed it. What prevents it is not diplomacy—but U.S. political cowardice and an alliance that has become immune to restraint.
This is not about ideology. It is about survival.
A world that tolerates one nuclear exception will eventually face many. And a world that excuses threats of nuclear annihilation because it likes the government making them is not enforcing order—it is inviting catastrophe.
The court of history will not be sympathetic to double standards backed by mushroom clouds.
No comments:
Post a Comment