The world is currently facing two major nuclear crises: the aggressive Moscow threatening to use nuclear weapons and the extreme armed organization representing Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Up to now, Russian President Putin has been sending vague signals about the potential use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war. This situation seemed to undergo a change when he announced a relaxation of Russia’s nuclear doctrine. The message conveyed was that an attack on Russia by non-nuclear states, with the participation or support of nuclear states, could be seen as a serious threat to Russian sovereignty. This is evidently referring to Ukraine increasingly using missiles from the US, UK, and France in its attacks against Russia.
Putin’s remarks on loosening the use of nuclear weapons have been amplified by the Kremlin as a potential change in Russia’s foundational documents on the use of nuclear weapons, making nuclear strikes a tangible possibility. Russia’s nuclear deterrence theory states that in the event of a pre-emptive strike or attack that threatens Russia’s survival, nuclear weapons can be used, but it does not clearly define the extent of threat that would trigger the use of nuclear weapons.
Last week, Putin stated that if Russia detects a large-scale incursion of missiles, aircraft, and drones into its territory, posing a “serious threat” to its sovereignty, Russia would consider the use of nuclear weapons. This could be interpreted as even a conventional attack by a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear state still potentially triggering a nuclear response from Russia. This clearly points to Ukraine, meaning that if Ukraine launches a major offensive, Russia reserves the right to respond with nuclear force.
Ironically, Putin’s latest nuclear threat comes right after the failure of the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test, which is designed to carry nuclear warheads to targets thousands of miles away. In June this year, Putin also boasted about Russia having far more tactical nuclear weapons than Europe.
However, the prospect of using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield in the Ukraine war has proven to not provide any battlefield advantage. Furthermore, Russia’s nuclear activities will be under comprehensive surveillance by Western space intelligence systems, meaning any impending nuclear actions will be warned by the West.
The installation of nuclear warheads on missiles involves a series of logistical issues, which will provide solid evidence for Western intelligence agencies to determine whether Putin truly intends to use nuclear weapons. Of course, Putin may be making such moves for show, but this kind of posturing is very dangerous as it could bring his opponents closer to nuclear weapon use as well. Some observers believe that Putin’s rhetoric may not signal a substantive change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine and remains within the realm of intimidation. Putin apparently hopes to slow down Ukraine and hopes the West will not relax restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range precision strike weapons.
Putin may also release pressure in the Ukraine war by proliferating nuclear weapons. Reports suggest that anonymous sources with connections to Iran and Lebanon have revealed that Putin is considering providing nuclear weapons to Iran. If true, this will spark one of the most severe geopolitical conflicts.
If Iran gets nuclear missiles from Russia, it could expedite Iran’s nuclear program timeline, making the Middle East turmoil even more complicated. Israel will surely take action rather than sit idly waiting for mushroom clouds to rise. As Netanyahu warned last year, “We will not let Iran get nuclear weapons. We will not wait for a bomb to strike Tel Aviv.”
This is not just a problem between Israel and Iran. If this nuclear nightmare unfolds, Iran’s regional proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and all other extremist individuals hostile toward the West could potentially join in. This would pose an even more complex threat of extremist religious armed groups in the Middle East to the world.
For years, Israel has threatened to launch preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, while the US has been working to prevent such attacks. Without full US support, if Israel independently carries out the mission of “terminating the Iranian nuclear program”, it will not be easy. Given that Iran’s nuclear facilities are 1800 kilometers away, and Israel’s air force lacks long-range bombers, conducting a stealth mission with F-35Is carrying bunker-busting bombs aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities would require at least one aerial refueling, making it a highly challenging covert operation. However, it is not impossible.
A preemptive strike could potentially lead to a full-scale war between Israel and Iran. Iran may be prepared for such attacks by Israel. No matter how stealthy Israel’s F-35 fighters are, they would face interception by Iranian fighter jets and air defense systems. The difficulty of such operations diminishes the likelihood of completely destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel has come close to this target before. In April this year, the Israeli air force attacked an Iranian military base near the Isfahan nuclear technology center, which houses facilities like nuclear research reactors, uranium conversion plants, and fuel production plants. However, that operation primarily targeted surface-to-air missile defense systems. If Israel had certainty in completely destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, it may have done so already. Now, Israel inevitably needs to coordinate more complex and widespread solutions with the US and the West.
On October 1st, President Biden stated that he does not endorse any Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This indicates the White House’s renewed efforts to urge Israel to exercise restraint to prevent a broader regional conflict in the Middle East. During a phone conference on October 2nd, G7 leaders shared the same attitude towards resolving the issue of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The United States, like Israel, should aim to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The balance between preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and avoiding a widespread regional conflict hinges on whether Israel’s preemptive attacks can achieve the goal of completely halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. If the action is too weak or too late, it may only delay rather than terminate Iran’s nuclear program, which might be why the Biden administration prefers to avoid triggering a larger regional conflict by refraining from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Nonetheless, this could mean the international community might helplessly watch as Iran becomes a member of the nuclear club, and then treat Iran like how it deals with North Korea. While this temporary measure might suppress the risk of a large-scale conflict for now, it could potentially sow seeds of greater peril for the world.
Of course, there is another possibility, where the Iranian people and some elite figures are unwilling to let Iran become a nation like North Korea due to international sanctions, abide by international rules, and push for Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. While this viewpoint may seem idealistic, this course of action would not be too late despite Iran’s impending acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, the US and other G7 countries are considering imposing sanctions on Iran, causing Iran to feel the suffocating financial restrictions.
Regarding Biden’s stance on not endorsing Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, on October 4th, Trump stated during a campaign event in North Carolina that Israel should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in response to Iran’s recent missile attacks. Trump said, “Isn’t the nuclear facility the one you should hit? Nuclear weapons are the biggest risk we face.”
“The answer should be hit the nuclear first, worry about the rest later,” he added.