The Iranian regime’s belief that a handful of nuclear weapons could guarantee its survival is only an illusion—one that may hasten its downfall.

By: Dr. Reza Parchizadeh

The moment of reckoning for Iran’s nuclear dreams seems very near. All signs point in that direction, most notably Trump’s messianic resurgence and his new arrangements with Netanyahu and Putin. As such, after a decades-long standoff between the West and Iran’s Islamist fanatics, finally a decisive resolution is looming on the horizon.

Tehran’s nuclear deterrence remains a central theme in political and analytical discourse. However, even if the Islamic Republic were to acquire a nuclear weapon, under current geopolitical circumstances it would fall short of establishing credible deterrence against its adversaries. Several critical factors underpin this point.

Deterrence or Illusion of Strength?

Nuclear deterrence is not merely a function of acquiring a handful of warheads. True deterrence demands a sizable, reliable arsenal capable of posing an existential threat. Iran lacks this capacity and is unlikely to acquire it in the foreseeable future.

For over two decades, Iran’s deterrence strategy has relied on a hybrid model that balanced its nuclear-threshold status with the activities of its regional proxies. This approach allowed Tehran to project power across the Middle East while shielding itself from direct military confrontation. However, in recent years, Israel has fundamentally altered that equation. Escalating hostilities have exposed Iran’s vulnerabilities, severely curtailing the effectiveness of its traditional deterrence.

Geopolitical realities further undermine Iran’s potential to achieve meaningful nuclear deterrence. Unlike North Korea—an isolated state with limited geopolitical entanglements—Iran operates at the heart of global trade routes, energy corridors, and military interests.

Any escalation by Tehran instantly reverberates across the Middle East and the broader global stage.

Iran’s recent ballistic missile strikes on Israel marked a dangerous escalation, reinforcing international fears over its nuclear ambitions. As such, rather than securing regime survival, pursuing nuclear capability would likely trigger a broad global coalition determined to neutralize the Iranian threat by any means possible.

History offers a sobering reminder. The Soviet Union commanded the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and yet it collapsed under the weight of internal decay. Iran, burdened by ideological rigidity and economic mismanagement while having no nuclear arsenal, faces a far steeper decline. Believing that a handful of nuclear weapons could guarantee its survival is, therefore, only an illusion—one that may hasten the regime’s downfall.

The Trump-Netanyahu-Putin Factor

During Donald Trump’s first term as U.S. president, internal divisions within his administration averted consensus on military action against Iran, allowing the Islamic Republic to escape direct conflict despite its intense hostility toward America and its regional allies. That dynamic has since shifted.

A resurgent Trump, aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, presents a far more coordinated and aggressive posture against Iran. Netanyahu has consistently lobbied Trump to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb. This is a position Trump firmly supports.

As soon as he returned to the White House, Trump lifted restrictions on advanced arms sales to Israel, authorized the transfer of bunker-buster bombs and Mother of All Bombs (MOAB), and reinstated maximum pressure on Tehran. He warned that absent a diplomatic solution, military action would become inevitable. It was recently revealed that Trump, in a personal letter delivered by an Emirati official, has given a two-month deadline to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to either make a new nuclear deal or face the consequences of not doing so.

Recent U.S. strikes on Houthi rebels and ongoing rhetorical threats against Iran further signal this shift toward escalation. The Trump administration has declared that Iran will be held responsible for any attacks by Yemen’s Houthis on global shipping as well as Israel, emphasizing that any aggression will be treated as a direct act by Iran, which will warrant severe retaliation.

Most recently, in a phone call with the Russian President, Trump and Vladimir Putin reached a rare consensus: Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons so that it cannot pose an existential threat to Israel. This marks a significant shift in the Kremlin’s stance, traditionally viewed as a staunch ally of the Islamist regime in Tehran. Moscow’s realignment leaves Iran increasingly exposed and vulnerable to a potential U.S.-Israeli strike.

The regional landscape has also dramatically changed since the October 7 Hamas terrorist raids against Israel. Iran’s proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—are under relentless attack. Israel has systematically dismantled much of Tehran’s regional network, which led to the loss of Syria for Iran. At the same time, Israel has conducted massive air strikes against Iran’s military targets, incapacitating its air defenses. Therefore, today the prospect of a full-scale Israeli-American assault on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is more plausible than ever.

Iran’s Path Forward: An Existential Dilemma

For the Islamic Republic, regime survival remains the paramount concern. Over a decade ago, I argued that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are aimed at this singular priority. Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, proclaimed that as a principle in December 1987. He famously encapsulated it in the sentence: “Upholding the system is the most essential of essentials.” That reality remains unchanged.

However, today the Iranian regime faces unprecedented internal dissent and external pressure while having developed no effective deterrence against attempts at its overthrow. Its only viable path to survival lies in negotiating with Trump. This means abandoning regional expansionism, normalizing relations with the West and neighboring states, and opening the political space to enable civil society and democratic development.

Failure to do so will be catastrophic. Iran risks suffering an attack comparable to the atomic bombing of Japan or the Chernobyl disaster. A sustained military campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities could result in a massive release of radioactive materials into the environment, causing mass casualties, contaminating nature and natural resources, and destroying the infrastructure. The aftermath would likely involve violent regime change, civil war, and potential disintegration of the nation.

In the final analysis, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms offers no guarantee of deterrence, only an illusion of strength that may ultimately hasten the regime’s downfall. The U.S. strikes on the Houthis in Yemen may be Trump’s final warning to Iran before the moment of reckoning arrives.

          (IsraelNationalNews.com)

Reza Parchizadeh, PhD, is a political scientist, foreign policy expert, and international affairs specialist. He has written extensively on Iran’s nuclear program and geopolitical ambitions as well as the regional and global responses to Tehran. Parchizadeh has appeared on Al Arabiya, BBC, Fox News, and Radio Israel, and is a regular guest analyst on the U.S. government’s Voice of America.