IN his State of the Union speech, Trump declared: “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon.” Suddenly, the USA wants a diplomatic option –a pull-back from the scramble it was earlier threatening.
The USA has a whopping nuclear stockpile of approximately 3,700 operational warheads, with a total inventory of 5,177 including those awaiting dismantlement. What gives the USA the right to demand that other countries do not weaponise while maintaining its nuclear arsenal. Israel is nudging the USA to push for a total dismantling of nuclear enrichment. Iran will not give up nuclear enrichment claiming that to be non-negotiable.
The “non-proliferation” framework established in 1970 and the NPT recognises five official nuclear-weapon states (US, Russia, UK, France, China) while requiring all other signatories to not acquire nuclear weapons. The US argues that it upholds this treaty by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to reduce the risk of global nuclear war. This is a colonial imposition that won’t stand too long.
Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea hold roughly 13,000 nuclear weapons. Russia and the USA hold the vast majority. Only five are recognised NPT nuclear-weapon states. Israel’s secret is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal of approximately 90 to 400 warheads, maintained under a strict policy of “strategic ambiguity”.
The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, during the final stages of World War II, resulting in over 200,000 deaths. What, then, gives the USA the moral right to issues directives/permissions to manufacture nuclear weapons? Other nuclear weapon nations possess nuclear weapons and have conducted over 2,000 tests; none have used them in active combat since 1945.
This is nuclear apartheid and colonialism – where established nuclear-armed states restrict other nations from acquiring nuclear capabilities while maintaining and modernizing their own arsenals. Countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America view the 1968 NPT as a tool of systemic inequality permits select nations to use nuclear weapons for deterrence or coercion while penalizing others.
Countries under a nuclear umbrella receive security guarantees. The USA extends protection to over 30 countries, including all non-nuclear NATO members, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. France offers nuclear deterrence capabilities to European allies and Russia provides security guarantees to specific former Soviet or aligned states. China, extends protection within its regional sphere. Pakistan has recently agreed to extend its nuclear deterrent to Saudi Arabia under a 2025 strategic agreement.
Iran’s fatwa against nuclear weapons
As of early 2026, Iran maintains that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and that it does not seek nuclear weapons, citing a religious fatwa against them. However, following the 2025 reimposition of UN sanctions and reports of authorised development of miniaturised warheads, international concerns have risen regarding Iran’s high-level uranium enrichment, which lacks clear civilian justification.
Iran persists with its claim to the right to peaceful nuclear technology, stating it will never develop a nuclear weapon, and expresses readiness for diplomacy to reach a “fair and equitable deal” with the U.S. Iran has accumulated high-enriched uranium, causing the IAEA to be unable to confirm the purely peaceful nature of its program.
in late 2025, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei authorized studies on developing miniaturized warheads for ballistic missiles. Due to increased non-compliance with safeguard agreements, UN sanctions were reimposed on Iran in September 2025. Iran relies heavily on its missile capabilities as a deterrent against foreign, particularly US or Israeli, aggression.
Israel maintains an increasingly aggressive stance against Iran’s nuclear program, heavily influencing U.S. policy through active lobbying and direct military action. Israel pushed the US to resume maximum pressure, successfully disrupting negotiations, and conducted significant direct strikes on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure in June 2025 (Operation Rising Lion).
Israel’s lobby against Iran – Weakening Iran is Israel’s goal
Following the 2025 “12-day war,” Israel, with US support, targeted Iranian nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz), targeted scientists, and missile production, somewhat weakening Iran’s “axis of resistance”.
Israel strongly opposed the resumption of nuclear talks and advocates for a comprehensive deal that includes curbing Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxy support, not just nuclear limitations. In June 2025, the US joined Israel in “Operation Midnight Hammer,” using heavy bombers to strike Iranian nuclear sites.
The 12-Day War in June 2025 attacks on Iran’s nuclear capabilities created a setback of one to two years for their weapons program without causing irreversible damage. Iran’s technical knowledge, personnel, and underground facilities (like Pickaxe Mountain) are not fully eliminated, allowing for potential rebuilding.
Strikes targeted uranium enrichment facilities and production centres and the killing of 19 nuclear scientists. Iran has shown resilience by attempting to repair sites and, as of early 2026, has recovered significant capabilities. While the strikes temporarily reduced Iran’s capacity, some analysis suggest it may encourage further, more hidden, proliferation efforts.
Iran has largely mitigated the interim oil losses caused by renewed US sanctions (post-2018) by leveraging a “shadow fleet” of tankers, deepening its reliance on Chinese buyers, and maximizing production from mature fields, with crude output stabilizing around 3.1–3.3 million barrels per day (bpd). Despite June 2025 Israeli strikes temporarily crippling export logistics and reducing shipments, Iran’s production rebounded, showing significant resilience. Over 90% of Iranian oil is shipped to China, often rebranded as “Oman Blend” or “Malaysian Light,” allowing sales to independent Chinese “teapot” refineries.
To counteract a natural decline rate of 8-12% in older fields, Iran has focused on reviving idle wells and upgrading infrastructure in the West Karun region. Iran increased its total refining capacity to over 2.3 million barrels per day, allowing it to become a net exporter of refined products (gasoline, diesel).
Following the 2025, Iran has tightened its wartime command, consolidating power in a strengthened Supreme National Security Council and a newly created Defense Council. Iran has placed armed forces on high alert, with missile launchers positioned near the Persian Gulf. While IAEA monitoring has been constrained, Iran has indicated readiness for limited nuclear concessions if U.S. demands for “zero enrichment” are relaxed.
The Iranian government is facing intense financial pressure due to the costs of sanction evasion, which eats up about one-third of its oil revenue. However, the regime is using barter trade and yuan-denominated accounts to sustain its economy. As of February 2026, Iran is displaying a posture of high military readiness and defiance in response to increased U.S. threats and military buildups in the region. Tehran has pledged a direct, “decisive response” to any aggression, signalled by massive drone additions, joint naval drills with Russia, and reinforced defenses at strategic sites.
Iran added 1,000 new “strategic” drones -including one-way, suicide, and reconnaissance aircraft to its forces. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) conducted war games in the Strait of Hormuz, aimed at simulating combat against U.S. assets.
Satellite images show Iran has reinforced sensitive military sites with concrete shields covered in soil. Unlike previous restrained responses, Iranian leadership has warned that any U.S. strike will be met with a direct, “non-calibrated” response, potentially targeting U.S. forces in the region.
Iran has conducted joint naval exercises with Russia in the Sea of Oman. Concurrently, it is engaging in, but limiting, diplomatic talks, refusing negotiations “under the shadow of threats”.
Facing internal unrest and “maximum pressure” tactics from the US, Tehran is utilizing state-aligned media to prepare the public for a “decisive confrontation” rather than an agreement.
The US has amassed significant naval and air power in the region, including aircraft carriers, in response to Iran’s crackdown on protests and nuclear advancements. Analysts warn that any US strike could lead to a wider regional war, with potential, significant, and direct retaliation by Iran against U.S. interests.
The strategic relationship between the United States and Iran is characterized by intense, indirect, and asymmetric competition rather than a direct, superior-versus-inferior matchup. Iran does not seek to match the US in conventional forces but focuses on “green-water” naval capabilities (speedboats, mines, submarines) and possesses the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East, along with significant kamikaze drone capabilities.
Iran is viewed as a “near-peer without peer” in asymmetric/irregular warfare, capable of posing significant threats to US interests and bases in the Gulf region. The US maintains conventional superiority, but Iran’s asymmetric capabilities in the Middle East create a high-stakes, “not superior” situation where a direct war is seen as costly and unpredictable, making diplomacy a preferred—if often strained – option to manage the confrontation.
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
