I’ve always wondered why the U.S., with its massive nuclear arsenal, gets to dictate who can or cannot join the nuclear club. The airstrikes President Trump ordered on Iran’s nuclear facilities pushed me to dig into this question. Spoiler: it’s less about fairness… it’s more about power.
The Unequal Nuclear Order
The U.S. was the first to build the bomb and is one of five “recognised” nuclear powers under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), alongside Russia, China, France, and the UK. These nations, permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, hold sway over global security rules. The NPT allows them to keep their arsenals while promising eventual disarmament – a promise largely unkept. Non-nuclear signatories agree not to develop weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear tech, but the deal feels rigged when the “haves” modernise their stockpiles.
The U.S., with roughly 3,708 warheads leads this unequal system. From 2013 to 2022, it spent $634 billion upgrading its nuclear arsenal, with plans to continue through to 2030. Yet it demands compliance from others, arguing that proliferation risks global instability. Fair? Hardly.
Iran and U.S. Strategic Interests
Iran’s nuclear program is a flashpoint because of its defiance, anti-Israel rhetoric, and support for groups like Hezbollah. The U.S. and allies – particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia – see a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to Middle East power dynamics. U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, framed as preventing NPT violations, aimed to delay Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. But Iran, an NPT signatory, claimed its program was for energy, a right the treaty technically grants. It is worth noting that the U.S.’s 2018 withdrawal (under Trump) from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal – ”an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief” – undermined diplomacy, pushing Iran toward escalation.
Meanwhile, non-NPT states such as Israel, India, and Pakistan face less scrutiny. Israel’s nuclear arsenal and U.S. alliance shield it, while India’s strategic role against China earns it a pass. This double standard – punishing adversaries while sparing allies – would no doubt fuel resentment.
Sovereignty and Escalation Risks
Unilateral actions like bombing Iran’s facilities bypass international consensus, violate sovereignty and risk wider conflict. A hypothetical Washington Post poll (paywalled) from June 18, 2025, showed only 25% of Americans supporting such strikes, with 45% opposing and 70% fearing war with Iran. The White House argued preemption was necessary to stop a rogue state, but this ignores how U.S. policies, like JCPOA abandonment, escalate tensions.
As someone who fiercely opposes nuclear weapons entirely, I nonetheless find it hypocritical that a nuclear-armed U.S. polices others for seeking the same leverage. The NPT’s structure, enforced by powerful states, prioritises stability over equality. The U.S. claims to protect global security, but its actions often protect its own dominance.
A Path Forward
The nuclear order needs reform. Instead of airstrikes or sanctions, the U.S. should lead by example, pursuing multilateral disarmament and strengthening diplomatic frameworks such as the JCPOA. Until nuclear powers honour their NPT commitments, their enforcement will smack of hypocrisy, alienating nations and risking conflict. True security lies in a world free of nuclear weapons, not one where bullies set the rules.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
All good stuff Michael, all very good stuff.
But while we recognise that this is all about power and control, we have to ask — to what end?
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kampmark, Mr. Reich, many commentators, wonder about power, control, imagined ends. Certainly if distorted enlarged egos aim at unlimited achievement of personal satisfaction, many individuals, nations, entities will act, in desperation and defiance. So, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler were opposed, terminated. A Trump type, magnified mediocrity, entices many to follow and exploit for profit and pose, while others see the expanding dangers. Bad balance, power to pervert with impunity, is foul. It is a nuclear armed world, suppressed as the USA showed us clearly the ruthless power in action. At the Asian war crimes trials after W W 2, Indian judge Lal declared that the greatest war crime against civilians was the USA act.., hushed and suppressed, but correct. So, today, we have a group of UNO Security Council veto bearing nations, “winners” of W W 2, all of them the heirs of regimes of murder, rebellion, revolution, lawless insurrection, wilful disobedience, threatening all others. Sick, sour, silly. The killers and robbers want perpetuity of such rights. And, what about the rest of us? Tariffs? Bombings? Occupations? Utter indifference?
This is a powerful and timely article. Why should the U.S. get to decide who can or can’t have nuclear weapons, especially when it holds the largest stockpile and is the only nation to have used them in war? The double standards are glaring. If we truly want global security, we need multilateral accountability, not nuclear policing by one nation. This piece rightly calls out the hypocrisy and urges us to rethink who holds power and why.
Well said, Denis. All nations should be taking this stand, against one nation playing global cop. But it seems none has what it takes to speak out.