Iran Builds a Bomb? Doctrine Change for Nuclear Weapons Is a Deterrent

A report on the views of prominent international commentators on why Iran needs to develop nuclear weapons after the imposed war by the United States and the Zionist regime. Read more.

Read a report of the statements of the world's leading experts in the international field about the necessity of making nuclear weapons by Iran after the war imposed by the United States and the Zionist regime.

According to Ambassador Arjan's report, Vatan wrote today: The war of the American terrorist regime against Iran, which began on March 9, challenged and collapsed many established ideas in the world's strategic mindset. For decades, it was a common idea that the possession of the world's largest army, advanced military technologies and a wide network of bases, in itself, guarantees the victory of the United States in any battle, but the experience of the recent war has shown that this idea is no longer valid. Despite the obvious quantitative and qualitative superiority in the field of military equipment and budget, America could not achieve its main goals and in the field of action, suffering defeat from Iran, it is stuck in a strategic deadlock that has been going on for more than 7 months now.

One of the foundations of American military doctrine since World War II was to create and maintain a network of military bases in sensitive areas of the world. These bases were supposed to create both deterrent power and enable quick response. Iran's missile and drone attacks on these bases in the Persian Gulf region and beyond showed how vulnerable this doctrine is to asymmetric warfare. Many of these bases were seriously damaged or disabled, and the Pentagon was forced to withdraw most of its military assets from the region; An issue that has practically shaken one of the pillars of Washington's military strategy.

The Arab countries hosting these bases have also come to the conclusion that the US military presence does not necessarily create security for them. Hosting American troops and equipment not only did not protect them from harm, but in some cases put them at greater risk. This experience undermined the traditional trust in the US security umbrella among some regional partners.

In addition, the recent war showed that the era of classical warfare is over. Relying on asymmetric warfare, a combination of ballistic missiles, drones, and controlling the Strait of Hormuz, Iran exposed the structural and strategic weaknesses of the American criminal army to the eyes of the world. Even the myth of the invincibility of some advanced US weapons was questioned. The interception of the "F-35" fighter by Iran's defense systems was one of the symbols of this development.

In the meantime, the impact of the American and Zionist regime's war against Iran on nuclear concepts is in the field of war calculations. Although Iran's strong responses to the attacks of the aggressors clearly showed that the nuclear deterrence of the US and the Zionist regime has at least suffered serious damage against Iran, in the meantime, most analysts and experts in the international field believe that one of Trump's big mistakes in attacking Iran is in the field of nuclear deterrence, especially these experts say that it is logical for Iran to reconsider its nuclear doctrine.

Since the beginning of the American war against Iran, many analysts, experts, think tanks and media in the world, including American and Zionist sources, have come to the conclusion that the Islamic Republic of Iran should take the path of possessing an atomic bomb in order to create a stronger deterrent against possible future attacks. One of the main reasons that analysts put forward is that the United States itself, with its behavior and decisions, has pushed Iran towards nuclear logic.

Matthew Bunn, a prominent nuclear expert and professor at Harvard University, emphasized in a detailed analysis published after the start of the war: "This war made Iran more determined to achieve nuclear deterrence." Ban clarified that despite the serious damage to Iran's nuclear facilities in the US attacks in the 12-day war and the recent war, sufficient materials and technical knowledge remain and Iran's motivation to build nuclear weapons has increased more than ever. This American university professor concluded that the war not only did not reduce the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but also increased it in the horizon of a decade.

The professor of political science at the University of Chicago and one of the prominent theorists of offensive realism also considered the war against Iran to be the biggest strategic mistake in American history in an analysis entitled "The Mother of All Strategic Mistakes". In the list of 11 reasons he presented for this assessment, Professor John Mersheimer specifically pointed to the nuclear consequences of the war and wrote that the United States not only did not achieve any of its main goals, including the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, the end of enrichment, the end of missile power, and the end of support for the resistance groups, but it actually strengthened Iran's strategic position in the region. He emphasized that the possibility of reaching any nuclear agreement with Iran is almost gone and instead there is a "reasonable possibility" that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. "Trump certainly gave the authorities of Iran and other non-nuclear nations around the world a powerful incentive to achieve nuclear deterrence," Mersheimer wrote bluntly. From Mersheimer's point of view, this war is not only a military and political failure, but also a deep strategic failure that strengthened the logic of nuclearization for Tehran.

Chatham House, which is currently known as one of the 3 most influential think tanks in the world in the field of analyzing strategic issues, in an analysis published in April, addressed the wider consequences of the US war against Iran for the non-proliferation regime. The think tank wrote that the war against Iran sent a dangerous message to the world: nuclear weapons create a deterrent that conventional capabilities cannot provide. Chatham House pointed to the experiences of Iraq, Libya and Ukraine, which were targeted by US and Russian military attacks after abandoning their weapons programs or surrendering their nuclear weapons, while North Korea, despite developing nuclear weapons, has so far been immune to direct US attack and even Trump's threatening rhetoric. According to the analysts of this think tank, many observers have come to the conclusion that if Iran had achieved nuclear deterrence earlier, it would not have been attacked. Chatham House also pointed out that "Iran was attacked during 2 rounds of active negotiations - June 2025 and again in late February 2026. For countries considering diplomatic engagement with Washington, this precedent is significant. Dialogue did not protect Iran."

"Raz Zimet", the director of the Iran program at the Institute of Security Studies of the Zionist regime, in a detailed report entitled "From nuclear threshold to nuclear weapon?" Revision of Iran's Nuclear Doctrine" which was published in late August, addressed the issue that the Islamic Republic tried for decades to refrain from the actual development of nuclear weapons while having the capability of nuclear energy. On the basis that such a capability would create deterrence without exposing Iran to the costs associated with a nuclear escape. However, developments since October 2023, particularly the 2 US-Israeli attacks on Iran over the past year, have transformed the concept of Iran's security and reinforced calls for a reassessment of its nuclear doctrine. In recent days, Pennsylvania State University political science professor Steven Simbala, in an article for the American Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS), discussed the importance of nuclear weapons in the international order. Simbala wrote: There is a clear difference between the fate of the countries that have developed nuclear weapons and the countries that have abandoned them. For example, America attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and participated in the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, but it behaves cautiously with North Korea. After surrendering its nuclear weapons, Ukraine became the target of Russian aggression. On the other hand, after going nuclear, India and Pakistan have not had a full-scale war with each other. Simbala concluded that the 2026 US war against Iran once again showed that the atomic bomb remains one of the main deterrent tools.

The university professor finally stated: "History shows that the world order is strongly linked to strategies involving nuclear weapons, which will become more diverse in this century."

The Wall Street Journal also addressed the same development in a report entitled "In Iran, the discussion of making an atomic bomb has become public" which was published in the first days of this month. The American media wrote: After the attacks of the US and Israel, a public discussion about building an atomic bomb in Iran has taken place, and the Iranian authorities, who used to emphasize the peaceful nature of their nuclear program, are now openly talking about withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and even building weapons.

Nuclear deterrence and enemy calculations

Some foreign observers even believe that if Iran had followed the path of nuclearization earlier, the way America and the Zionist regime would have faced it would have been very different from what we are witnessing today. Obviously, having a nuclear weapon does not create a 100% and complete deterrence, because no weapon can give such a guarantee, but it must be accepted that its existence significantly affects the enemy's calculations. Based on this statement, it is necessary to point out the fact that the United States and the Zionist regime, which started the recent war with maximum goals, including the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and the territorial division of Iran, when faced with the threat of a nuclear response, moved to the extreme, defined their goals more narrowly, and probably avoided risky actions, including the assassination and martyrdom of the wise leader of the Islamic Revolution. The experience of North Korea, India, Pakistan, and even Russia in the Ukraine war shows that nuclear weapons raise the minimum threshold of conflict and greatly increase the cost of any military action.

A review of the views of the world's leading experts in the international field clearly shows that they believe that the attack of the United States and the Zionist regime on Iran and the continuation of their threats against Iran will make Iran naturally inclined to build nuclear weapons. While these analysts talk about the necessity of changing Iran's nuclear doctrine and building nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic of Iran, they say that after the imposed 40-day war, the senior officials of the United States and the Zionist regime are trying to persuade Europe to participate in the war against Iran, describing this war as a civilized and ancient war against Iran. Marco Rubio's recent statements in Greece clearly show that the White House, following the idea of ​​a civilizational war against Iran, is laying the groundwork for committing new crimes against the Iranian people. Moreover, Trump himself threatened Iran with the destruction of civilization on several occasions during the 40-day war. In such a situation, when the enemy is creating an ideological groundwork to attack Iran again and commit more crimes against the Iranian people, the necessity of changing Iran's nuclear doctrine and completing deterrence is a fact that international experts consider it not a choice, but a compulsion for Iran.