Iran and the Nuclear Threat: A Question of Fact Versus Fear
Iran is frequently discussed within the international community as a nuclear threat; however, the facts do not support the claim that Iran currently poses a nuclear threat to global security. Comprehensive investigations and monitoring by organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and repeated assessments by intelligence agencies have confirmed that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons. While Iran has developed nuclear technology for energy and scientific advancement, it has not acquired or manufactured a nuclear arsenal. Therefore, actions taken against Iran under the pretext of nuclear threat are rooted not in proven evidence of intent or capability, but primarily stem from fear and geopolitical suspicion.
Nuclear Weapons: Real Threats Lie with Existing Stockpiles
To understand where the real nuclear threat to world security lies, attention must be given to the countries that actually possess nuclear weapons and control vast arsenals. As of early 2025, nine countries are known to have nuclear weapon stockpiles: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea.
The following table summarizes the main nuclear-armed countries and their estimated number of warheads:
Country Estimated Warheads (2025)
Russia 5,889
United States 5,277
China 600
France 290
United Kingdom 225
Pakistan 170
India 172
Israel ~90
North Korea ~30
The overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons, over 90%, are in the possession of the United States and Russia. These states have deployed and maintained these arsenals for decades, with no binding global commitment to full disarmament realized despite their rhetorical support for nonproliferation agreements. In contrast, Iran's nuclear achievements fall far short of these levels and have not crossed into weaponization.
Histories of Warfare Among Nuclear-Armed States
Examining the historical conduct of nuclear-armed states reveals a consistent pattern of military interventions and warfare far exceeding Iran’s record. The United States has engaged in numerous armed conflicts worldwide—including the Korean War, Vietnam War, both World Wars, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War. Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union, have also repeatedly used military force beyond their borders, from Cold War interventions to the recent war in Ukraine. China, India, Pakistan, France, and the United Kingdom have also engaged in wars, interventions, or border conflicts throughout their modern histories.
These histories show that the most heavily armed nuclear states have not hesitated to use military force and have, at times, been involved in actions with severe humanitarian consequences. Despite their nuclear arsenals and records of military aggression, these countries are rarely held to the same standard of suspicion or subjected to analogous international sanctions, particularly on the basis of preventing nuclear conflict.
Justifications by Nuclear States and Iran’s Perspective
Nuclear-armed countries frequently justify the retention of their arsenals on the grounds of national and global security, claiming nuclear weapons deter large-scale wars and provide stability. These justifications are repeated in national policies and global forums, framing their stockpiles as necessary, safe, and responsible.
Conversely, Iran offers a consistent legalistic and moral justification for its nuclear activities. Iranian leadership argues that their nuclear program is peaceful and within their rights as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows the development of civilian nuclear energy under monitoring and control. Iran publicly states it does not seek nuclear weapons and has codified this position within religious commitments and official doctrine.
If one chooses not to believe Iran’s official explanations—despite a lack of evidence for weaponization and a substantially less aggressive military record compared to nuclear-armed nations—then it is inconsistent to uncritically accept the safety narratives and justifications of the countries with the largest nuclear stockpiles and records of warfare. If suspicion of intent is to be the standard, that standard must be applied evenly, not selectively.
The Rationality and Fairness of Sanction Policy
From a rational standpoint, the imposition of sanctions or other prohibitive measures should be grounded in factual evidence of threat, not speculation or fear. Currently, fear-based action is directed at Iran due to its potential, not actual, capacity for nuclear arms, despite the far greater factual threat emanating from states with verifiable nuclear arsenals and substantial military activity histories.
Fairness and equality in international affairs require that all countries are held to the same standards concerning nuclear nonproliferation. Disarmament or prohibition of nuclear weapons can only be meaningfully imposed if all states, not just non-nuclear states or specific adversaries, adhere to the same rules. Selectively targeting Iran for sanctions while nuclear nations—especially those with histories of war and large arsenals—maintain their stockpiles violates the principles of rationality, fairness, and equality.
The NPT itself requires nuclear-weapon states to pursue disarmament in good faith, yet this goal remains largely unfulfilled. As such, imposing sanctions on Iran in the absence of concrete weaponization, while turning a blind eye to the enduring, well-documented threats posed by established nuclear powers, is neither a rational security policy nor a sustainable basis for global trust and cooperation. It is an inconsistent, fear-driven approach that undermines both nonproliferation goals and international equity.
Conclusion: Toward Universal Rules and Accountability
If the logic of world security is to be followed, actions must be based on verifiable facts, not suspicions or selective fears. The factual record clearly shows which countries maintain the largest nuclear arsenals and which have been involved in more warfare.The legitimacy of disarmament and nonproliferation efforts hinges on all states, especially those with the greatest means for destruction, adhering to the same international norms.
In the absence of such equality—when sanctions focus on states that have not crossed the nuclear threshold and ignore the actions of well-armed states—the global nonproliferation regime is weakened, and the rational, fair pursuit of global security is compromised. Only through universal adherence to disarmament and fair enforcement of nonproliferation rules can true security and trust be established among nations.
