The international nuclear debate has recently become central to global security discussions due to the Iran crisis. The main reason given in Washington for supporting military action against Iran is clear: to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, this preventive approach may actually be accelerating the very outcome it seeks to avoid—an increase in nuclear ambitions in already unstable regions.

The most important crisis problem is the nuclear program of Iran. A recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency showed that Iran was stocked with over 408 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. This reserve can be further enhanced to provide adequate material for various nuclear warheads. Coupled with the possession of approximately 2500 ballistic missiles, the largest in the Persian Gulf region, the military capability of Iran has taken over the top of the list of Western policymakers. Also, Tehran has been sponsoring armed groups in the region, which again enhances the perception of the Iranian nation as an unstable body, which again justifies the sound action in the minds of its detractors.

Such an opinion was condensed by the former President of the United States, Donald Trump, who noted that Iran should at no time be allowed to develop the capacity to possess nuclear weapons by arguing that once such an attainment is made, it would be impossible to bring peace in the Middle East. According to this view, military intervention is not aggression, but it is imperative. This argument, however, has a fundamental premise: that coercive power can be used to prevent nuclear proliferation without unintended consequences. History suggests otherwise.

The Iranian facilities of ballistic missiles have been severely damaged by the recent American and Israeli attacks. Nevertheless, rather than undermining the Tehran drive to build a........

© Eurasia Review