Deterrence or death: Israel is making the case for a nuclear-armed Iran

Tehran will continue to be sanctioned, pummeled, and subjected to targeted assassinations until strategic deterrence is attained

Just hours after Israel launched its strikes on Iran in the early hours of Friday, June 13, U.S. President Donald J. Trump declared that it was “not too late” for Tehran to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. The level of delusion displayed by the joint aggressors here is simply staggering. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the bombs being rained on Iranian cities as a means to bring “freedom”.

The U.S.-Israeli axis sees no contradiction in reducing a sovereign nation to rubble while draping its aggression in humanitarian rhetoric. The strike came even as Washington and Tehran were engaged in protracted negotiations over the thorny nuclear issue. This is not diplomacy; this is coercion cloaked in diplomatic theatre. Worse, it will go down as a day of infamy in international relations: a moment when negotiation was used not to resolve conflict, but to disguise premeditated violence.

Regime change blowback

What did Israel and the United States hope to achieve through this betrayal? Regime change? The total submission of a sovereign nation to a militarized settler state forged in 1948? Are we now expected to believe that post-regime change, Tehran will suddenly embrace Tel Aviv — as some delusional pro-Israel ideologues like to fantasize?

Incredibly, Israel now casts itself as the victim. Russia’s deputy UN envoy Dmitry Polyansky brusquely described Israel’s claims that it was only acting in “self-defense” as “very perverted logic.” But such perversion runs deep in the policies and pathologies of the Israeli state.

As key Iranian infrastructure is bombed to ruins, and as Netanyahu urges Iranians to overthrow what he calls “an evil and oppressive regime,” many Iranians are calling, ironically and defiantly, for their government to acquire nuclear weapons as the only credible deterrent against the endless cycle of sanctions, sabotage, targeted killings, and military strikes unleashed by the U.S.-Israeli axis. Under such circumstances, can Tehran be blamed for cultivating and arming proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas in an effort to contain Israel? Just look at what Israel did to its neighbours before these groups existed?

What makes Netanyahu believe that any post-Ayatollah government would be more pliant? If anything, it might be more resolute in seeking the ultimate deterrence. After all, Iran has been the target of unrelenting foreign aggression since the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup against nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

And let us not forget that during the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic was bombarded with chemical weapons, supplied or sanctioned by Western powers. Washington had no qualms back then, when Saddam was “our man.” That was, until Israel orchestrated a back-channel arms pipeline that would become the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

A Matter of Honour

Can any self-respecting nation endure the constant humiliation meted out by its adversaries? That model of submission may succeed in parts of the Arab world, or in post-colonial client states across the Global South, but the Persians are apparently made of sterner stuff. Only time will tell. A civilization that traces its lineage to Cyrus and Avicenna has a moral and historical obligation to protect itself from existential threats. And if doing so requires the ultimate form of deterrence, then so be it — even if that means defying a so-called “international community” that has allowed Israel to quietly amass nuclear weapons and lay waste to its neighbors with impunity for nearly 80 years.

Israel, for its part, has warned the world time and again of the consequences of ignoring its self-declared prerogatives. As Netanyahu declared last year: “If Israel falls, the whole world falls.”

What exactly did he mean by that? Perhaps he was alluding to the Samson Option — a Sword of Damocles that Israel has long wielded over the world’s head. It has been described as a nuclear-armed ultimatum: protect Israel at all costs, or face global ruin.

The ‘Samson Option’

The Samson Option refers to Israel’s alleged military doctrine of massive nuclear retaliation in the face of an existential threat. Named after the biblical figure who brought down a Philistine temple, killing himself along with his enemies, the doctrine reflects a last-resort strategy. If Israel faces annihilation, it will reportedly unleash its full nuclear arsenal, possibly as many as 400 warheads, against its adversaries, regardless of collateral damage or global fallout.

But is the Samson Option truly limited to nuclear counterstrikes?

Former Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett once warned that if Israel were ever pushed to the brink, critical global systems, including life-sustaining medical devices like pacemakers, could cease to function. That may sound far-fetched, until you consider that Israel's cybersecurity and cyber-strategic sectors have become a strategic pillar of its economy. Navigation apps like Waze, maritime tracking systems, and aerospace logistics pipelines are embedded with “secure” Israeli codes.

Now imagine a hidden fail-safe buried in legacy software across the globe, programmed to unleash cascading failures across nuclear plants, air traffic control systems, financial markets, and emergency infrastructure when the Samson Option is unleashed? Think of the recent Stuxnet and Lebanese pager affairs as harbingers. One keystroke, one kill-switch, and the lights go out everywhere!

As a researcher in systemic global risks, I find it increasingly naïve to assume that the Samson Option is limited to a conventional nuclear doctrine.

The real Samson Option may be about collapsing the global system itself — a scorched-earth deterrent against isolation or defeat.

A case for a nuclear Iran

Kenneth Waltz, one of the most influential realist thinkers in international relations, argued in a controversial 2012 Foreign Affairs article titled "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb" that a nuclear-armed Iran might actually stabilize the Middle East, rather than destabilize it.

Waltz's theory is rooted in neorealism (or structural realism), which sees the international system as anarchic, and posits that states act primarily to ensure their own survival. From this perspective, nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, and their spread, under specific conditions, can actually lead to greater stability. Consider North Korea: since developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, its behavior has arguably become more calculated and status-quo-oriented. It also encouraged Trump to extend an olive branch to Kim Jong-un.

Israel remains the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, a monopoly fostering strategic imbalance and absolute impunity. The emergence of a rival nuclear-armed state, even with minimal second-strike capability, would force belligerent sides to act with greater caution. Conflicts would likely be reduced to face-saving precision strikes, as seen with nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Despite hosting radical militant groups, Pakistan has behaved as a rational actor within the nuclear matrix.

Similarly, a nuclear Iran could reduce its reliance on asymmetric proxy strategies — such as its support for Hamas or Hezbollah — because its security would primarily rest on deterrence.

Some critics however warn that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia may rapidly follow suit. A moot point, except that Riyadh had bankrolled Islamabad’s nuclear weapons program under America’s watch during the 1980s Soviet-Afghan War which featured beloved “anti-Soviet warriors” like Osama bin Laden!

There are also persistent reports which suggest that some Pakistani nuclear assets may already be stationed in Saudi Arabia, under the command of senior Pakistani officers. In the event of a regional nuclear escalation, Riyadh can simply request transfer at will.

Historical precedents also do not support alarmist non-proliferation fears. When North Korea acquired nuclear weapons, neither South Korea nor Japan followed suit. Deterrence, once established, tends to cool ambitions, especially when the cost of escalation becomes too high.

What if Iran is destroyed?

So, what happens if Israel prevails in the current high-stakes military standoff, and a “friendly” government is installed in Tehran? This can come about in any number of ways, as Israel alone will not be able to bomb Iran into submission. From a game theory perspective, a series of false flag events can be pinned on “Iranian sleeper cells.” Furthermore, Netanyahu keeps insisting that Iran is plotting to assassinate Trump — a charge unsubstantiated by any U.S. intelligence findings. If a “presidential transition” occurs overnight, Vice President J.D. Vance may likely commit U.S. forces directly to Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Iran.

But let’s game out another scenario: If the current conflict escalates and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is destroyed — whether by design or by accident — Iran will almost certainly be blamed for the loss of Islam’s third holiest site. Such an event would enrage the Sunni Muslim world, redirecting its fury toward Shia Iran, and potentially paving the way for Israel to construct its long-anticipated Third Temple. Notably, in the early 1980s, Israeli extremists plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock and the adjacent Al-Aqsa Mosque to effect this very outcome.

Should such scenarios unfold, it could mark the disintegration of the Middle East as we know it. Netanyahu has previously hinted that after Iran, nuclear-armed “militant Islamic regimes” like Pakistan could be next in Israel’s crosshairs. This warning is not without its irony. For decades, Pakistan’s deep state has maintained covert ties with Israel — dating back to Mossad-ISI collaboration in arming the Mujahideen during the 1980s Soviet-Afghan war. Israel has long been aware of Pakistan’s “pan-Islamic” nuclear ambitions but likely opted for strategic silence until all the Middle Eastern chips were in place.

What the wider Muslim world fails to grasp is this: alliances with unprincipled powers are always transactional. When the geopolitical bill comes due, it may cost far more than anyone is willing to pay.

The Zionist Dream

Since its founding in 1948, several Israeli leaders have consistently expressed a vision of “Greater Israel” stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates — encompassing parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf. Iran however remained the perennial spoiler to this geopolitical wet dream.

In fact, it was none other than Supreme Allied Commander Europe (NATO), General Wesley Clark, who famously revealed that Iran was the last in a list of seven Middle Eastern countries slated for regime change after 9/11. The current conflict is not about Iranian nukes per se; it is about Israel’s territorial ambitions and the fulfilment of ancient apocalyptic messianic fantasies.

Zionist ideologues like Avi Lipkin had even floated the idea of “purifying Mecca, Medina, and Mt. Sinai — rhetoric that signals theological as much as territorial ambitions. Once Israel secures strategic depth in the Middle East, it may soon challenge major powers beyond the region. But first, Iran must be subdued!

Additional ways you can support my writing

• Tip me a ONE-TIME cuppa with Ko-Fi

• Share, restack or quote my posts. Or better yet, recommend my Substack!