Earth is the playground of our children and their children. We cannot allow it to be the playground of the nuclear arms of the evil forces. A nuclear-weapons-free world is the highest gift of humanity to the next generation.
(Amit Ray, Indian author and spiritualist)

The international nuclear order is paradoxical and deeply inequitable. While nine countries—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—maintain nuclear arsenals, most other nations are legally barred from developing such capabilities. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), adopted in 1968, formalised this divide. It allows the five recognised nuclear-weapon states (P5) to retain nuclear weapons, obliges them to pursue disarmament in good faith (Article VI), and prohibits all other signatories from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This framework has institutionalised what can only be described as nuclear apartheid: a hierarchy of power where certain states are privileged with the ultimate weapons of mass destruction while others face coercion, sanctions, or military threats for pursuing similar programs. The selective application of non-proliferation norms, particularly in the Middle East, has created tension, resentment, and ongoing instability.

George Galloway, the former British parliamentarian and longtime critic of Western foreign policy, observed:
“The West enforces a double standard in the nuclear sphere: Israel flaunts its arsenal with impunity, while Iran is threatened, sanctioned, and pressured to surrender its sovereign right to technology. This is a moral and legal scandal.” (facebook.com)

Iran’s right to pre-emptive defence

Iran faces repeated threats from the United States, Israel, and European powers. In such a context, Tehran asserts its right to pre-emptive defence under international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognises a nation’s inherent right to self-defence if an armed attack occurs. Traditionally, this right has been interpreted as reactive, but legal precedent, particularly the Caroline doctrine of 1837, allows anticipatory self-defence when a threat is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

Given the explicit threats and covert actions by adversaries, Iran contends that its nuclear program is not only peaceful but essential to national security. Western commentators have criticised EU and US policy for ignoring the asymmetric threats: political scientist Noam Chomsky notes: “Iran’s nuclear program is framed as a menace to justify sanctions and military pressure, while Israel, with its far larger and undeclared arsenal, is tacitly endorsed.”

This stance is reinforced by threats of “snapback” sanctions, which the EU powers—Britain, France, and Germany – pushed through the UN Security Council in August 2025. Iran has described these sanctions as legally flawed, noting that the United States, which triggered the snapback, is no longer a party to the JCPOA, rendering their invocation illegitimate. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, warned: “Iran will respond forcefully to sanctions that violate international law and threaten our sovereignty. Our nation will not bow to double standards.”

Historical background: The genesis of nuclear inequality

The Cold War institutionalised the nuclear hierarchy. The United States and Soviet Union, later joined by Britain, France, and China, acquired recognised nuclear weapons status, while all others were expected to abstain under the NPT framework. Non-signatories like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea pursued weapons outside the treaty, yet faced little international enforcement.

READ: Iran, China, Russia reject European move to trigger ‘snapback’ sanctions on Tehran

The NPT enshrines inequality. Article VI requires nuclear states to pursue disarmament in good faith -a promise that remains largely unfulfilled. Meanwhile, non-nuclear states are barred from pursuing similar capabilities, creating a legal and moral double standard. Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix commented: “Non-proliferation cannot be credible if it is applied selectively. The current system rewards power and punishes weakness.”

Iran, historically targeted with sanctions and political isolation, epitomises this inequity. Its peaceful nuclear ambitions have been weaponized in international rhetoric to justify coercive policies, despite compliance with IAEA inspections and verification regimes.

Iran’s nuclear programme: Peaceful intentions and legal defence

Iran’s nuclear program is centred on electricity generation, medical isotopes, and research reactors. Its compliance with the 2015 JCPOA included:

Limiting uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent
Reducing stockpiles to 300 kg of low-enriched uranium
Allowing IAEA continuous inspections

The United States’ unilateral withdrawal in 2018 triggered renewed tension, as Iran responded by resuming enrichment beyond JCPOA limits. Yet Iran maintains that all steps are reversible and transparent, consistent with peaceful objectives. The 2025 EU-initiated “snapback” of UN sanctions is therefore legally contested. Legal scholar Laura Holgate explains: “Invoking snapback when the initiating state is no longer a participant violates the JCPOA’s own provisions and undermines the authority of international law.”

Iran’s stance is bolstered by the principle of self-determination and sovereignty, which underpins Article 2(1) of the UN Charter. Forced disarmament under threat of sanctions contradicts these principles.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal: The regional double standard

Israel, by contrast, maintains a substantial nuclear arsenal—estimated between 80–200 warheads—while never signing the NPT. Its policy of nuclear ambiguity shields it from scrutiny. The asymmetry creates an incentive for Iran and other regional states to consider nuclear parity as a defensive necessity.

Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli military analyst, observes: “Israel’s nuclear monopoly pressures Iran to seek a deterrent, yet the world portrays Iran as the aggressor. This is a classic case of selective enforcement.”

The Western powers’ tacit support of Israel, combined with active pressure on Iran, demonstrates the systemic inequity of the nuclear order.

Legal and ethical implications

Selective enforcement of nuclear norms violates both the letter and spirit of international law.
NPT Article VI: Nuclear states must pursue disarmament in good faith
UN Charter Article 2(4): Prohibits the threat or use of force
Caroline doctrine: Supports anticipatory self-defence

The repeated threats against Iran, including military operations, sanctions, and diplomatic isolation, contrast sharply with tolerance of Israel’s undeclared arsenal. This undermines the credibility of the non-proliferation regime and perpetuates regional instability.

George Galloway underscores this hypocrisy: “The West wants to lecture Iran while shielding Israel and ignoring its arsenal. This is not law; its power politics disguised as morality.”

Geopolitical Implications

Nuclear apartheid encourages proliferation and regional instability. If nations perceive rules as applied unequally, they are incentivised to pursue clandestine capabilities. In the Middle East, this dynamic has escalated tensions between Iran and Israel, destabilised the Gulf, and complicated broader diplomacy. It also erodes trust in international institutions, making multilateral arms control agreements increasingly difficult.

A call for nuclear equity

Only a system grounded in equity can prevent future proliferation crises. To dismantle nuclear apartheid, the international community must:

Apply Non-Proliferation Law Consistently: All nuclear states, including Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, should undergo verification.
Promote Transparency: Stockpiles, modernisation programs, and doctrines should be disclosed to reduce suspicion.
Respect Sovereignty: Countries pursuing peaceful nuclear technology must be allowed to do so without coercive sanctions.
Encourage Disarmament: Nuclear powers must commit to Article VI of the NPT with genuine progress toward elimination.

Conclusion: No nuclear apartheid

Iran’s struggle exemplifies the moral and legal failures of the current nuclear order. Punishing Iran while protecting other nuclear powers entrenches inequality, undermines international law, and destabilises regions. The world must embrace the principle of nuclear equity: Iran, like any sovereign nation, has the right to peaceful nuclear technology and, if necessary, pre-emptive defence in the face of credible threats.

As Abbas Araghchi a seasoned diplomat and politician, now Iran’s foreign minister, emphasises: “Iran will not be coerced into surrendering its sovereign right to peaceful nuclear technology. We seek equity, not exceptionalism.” Araghchi is no novice on the question of disarmament, and the word better fully listen because they are spoken with assertive dignity and integrity.

OPINION: Host, bully, hypocrite: The US’s shameful gatekeeping of the UN

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.