
The bombing of Iran may teach an unwelcome lesson on nuclear weapons
'The risks of Iran acquiring a small nuclear arsenal are now higher than they were before the events of last week,' said Robert J. Einhorn, an arms control expert who negotiated with Iran during the Obama administration. 'We can assume there are a number of hard-liners who are arguing that they should cross that nuclear threshold.'
Advertisement
Iran would face formidable hurdles to producing a bomb even if it made a concerted dash for one, Einhorn said, not least the knowledge that if the United States and Israel detect such a move, they will strike again. It is far from clear that Iran's leaders, isolated, weakened and in disarray, want to provoke him.
Advertisement
Yet the logic of proliferation looms large in a world where the nuclear-armed great powers -- the United States, Russia and China -- are viewed as increasingly unreliable and even predatory toward their neighbors. From the Persian Gulf and Central Europe to East Asia, analysts said, non-nuclear countries are watching Iran's plight and calculating lessons they should learn from it.
'Certainly, North Korea doesn't rue the day it acquired nuclear weapons,' said Christopher R. Hill, who led lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, talks with Pyongyang in 2007 and 2008 to try to persuade it to dismantle its nuclear program.
The lure of the bomb, Hill said, has become stronger for America's allies in the Middle East and Asia. Since World War II, they have sheltered under a U.S. security umbrella. But they now confront a president, in Trump, who views alliances as incompatible with his vision of 'America first.'
'I'd be very careful with the assumption that there is a U.S. nuclear umbrella,' said Hill, who served as ambassador to South Korea, Iraq, Poland, and Serbia under Democratic and Republican presidents. 'Countries like Japan and South Korea are wondering whether they can rely on the U.S.'
Support for developing nuclear weapons has risen in South Korea, though its newly elected president, Lee Jae-myung, has vowed to improve relations with North Korea. In 2023, President Joe Biden signed a deal with Seoul to involve it more in nuclear planning with the United States, in part to head off a push by South Korean politicians and scientists to develop their own nuclear weapons capability.
Advertisement
In Japan, the public has long favored disarmament, a legacy of the U.S. atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But it has begun debating whether to store nuclear weapons from the United States on its soil, as some members of NATO do. Shinzo Abe, a former prime minister, said that if Ukraine had kept some of its Soviet-era bombs, it might have avoided a Russian invasion.
President Vladimir Putin's threats to use tactical nuclear weapons early in that conflict gave pause to the Biden administration about how aggressively to arm the Ukrainian military. It also deepened fears that other revisionist powers could use nuclear blackmail to intimidate their neighbors.
The lesson of Ukraine could end up being, 'If you have nuclear weapons, keep them. If you don't have them yet, get them, especially if you lack a strong defender like the U.S. as your ally and if you have a beef with a big country that could plausibly lead to war,' wrote Bruce Riedel and Michael E. O'Hanlon, analysts at the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, in 2022.
Saudi Arabia, an ally of the United States and archrival of Iran, has watched Tehran's nuclear ambitions with alarm. Experts say it would feel huge pressure to develop its own weapon if Iran ever obtained one. The United States has tried to reassure the Saudis by dangling assistance to a civil nuclear program, but those negotiations were interrupted by Israel's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
And yet, for all the predictions of a regional arms race, it has yet to occur. Experts say that is a testament to the success of nonproliferation policies, as well as to the checkered history of countries that pursued weapons.
Advertisement
The Middle East is a messy landscape of dashed nuclear dreams. Iraq, Syria and Libya all had their programs dismantled by diplomacy, sanctions or military force. In the category of cautionary tales, Libya's is perhaps the most vivid: Moammar Gadhafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Eight years later, after a NATO-backed military operation toppled his government, he crawled out of a drainpipe to face a brutal death at the hands of his own people.
Iran's strategy of aggressively enriching uranium, while stopping short of a bomb, did not ultimately protect it either.
'To the extent that people are looking at Iran as a test case, Trump has shown that its strategy is not a guarantee that you will prevent a military attack,' said Gary Samore, a professor at Brandeis University who worked on arms control negotiations in the Obama and Clinton administrations.
Samore said it was too soon to say how the Israeli and American strikes on Iran would affect the calculus of other countries. 'How does this end?' he said. 'Does it end with a deal? Or is Iran left to pursue a nuclear weapon?'
Experts on proliferation are, by nature, wary. But some are trying to find a silver lining in the events of the last week. Einhorn said that in delivering on his threat to bomb a nuclear-minded Iran, Trump had sent a reassuring message to U.S. allies facing their own nuclear insecurities.
'In Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing,' Einhorn said, 'they've taken notice not just of the reach and capacity of the U.S. military, but the willingness of this president to use that capability.'
Advertisement
This article originally appeared in

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senate Republicans revise Trump's policy bill, scrounging for votes to pass it
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republican leaders in the Senate are rushing to shore up support for the legislation so they can quickly pass it and send it to the House for final approval in time to meet the July 4 deadline Trump has set. An initial vote in the Senate could come later Saturday. Advertisement Party leaders are trying to appease two flanks of their conference. Some, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said they could not support it without greater reassurances that the Medicaid cuts it contains would not hurt rural hospitals in their states. And fiscal hawks, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have said they do not want to back legislation that would only increase the deficit. Advertisement The core of the bill remains the same. It would extend tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 and add some new ones Trump campaigned on, while slashing spending on safety-net programs, including Medicaid and food assistance. The biggest tax cuts and the biggest changes to those anti-poverty programs remained intact. Taken together, the bill would likely increase federal debt by more than $3 trillion over the next decade, though lawmakers are still shaping the bill and waiting on an official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. With Trump demanding quick action, Republicans in Congress have intensified their efforts to push it through to enactment even as many of them — including several who voted for it in the House — have been open about their reservations about a measure they are concerned could be a political loser. The revisions released early Saturday were designed to allay some of those concerns. Senators, including Tillis and Susan Collins, R-Maine, had pressed for the inclusion of a rural hospital fund to help health care providers absorb the impact of a provision that would crack down on strategies that many states have developed to finance their Medicaid programs. Despite their pushback, that provider tax change remains in the bill, though lawmakers have delayed its implementation by one year. It is unclear whether a $25 billion compensation fund will be enough to win their votes. Collins had suggested that she wanted to provide as much as $100 billion to ensure that rural hospitals, which operate on thin margins, were not adversely affected. Advertisement But it appeared to be enough to win over at least one Republican holdout who had expressed concern about the Medicaid cuts — Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who said he would vote for the bill and was confident that changes benefit his state at least in the short term. A new provision allowing 'individuals in a noncontiguous state' to be exempt from enforcing new work requirements imposed on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, appeared aimed at mollifying Murkowski of Alaska. Her state would be hit with billions of dollars in nutrition assistance costs as a result of the legislation, and she had cited the provision as one of her chief concerns. The bill also includes new health provisions designed to benefit Alaska, as well as new tax benefits for fishers in the state's waters. Some of the changes were aimed at appealing to members of the House, where Republicans from high-tax states like New York have threatened to sink the bill if it does not include a substantial increase in the state and local tax deduction, currently capped at $10,000. Senate Republicans, skeptical of the deduction, still ultimately decided to match the House plan to lift the cap to $40,000. But while the House made the increase permanent, the Senate keeps it for only five years, allowing it to snap back to $10,000 in 2030. The newest draft makes even sharper cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power, something that Trump and other conservatives had explicitly called for this past week. It remains to be seen whether those changes could cause friction with Republicans who have publicly supported green energy credits, including Tillis, Murkowski and Sen. John Curtis of Utah. Advertisement Previously, the Senate proposed allowing companies that were building wind and solar farms to claim a tax credit worth at least 30% of their costs if they started construction this year, with a phaseout over two years. But the revised bill would require companies place their projects 'in service' by the end of 2027 to claim the tax break. The bill would also impose additional taxes on renewable energy projects that receive 'material assistance' from China, even if they don't qualify for the credit. Because China dominates global supply chains, those new fees could affect a large number of projects. The new Senate measure would more quickly end tax credits for electric vehicles, doing away with them by Sept. 30. It would also slow the phaseout of a lucrative tax credit to make hydrogen fuels, allowing such projects to qualify if construction were started by the end of 2027, instead of by the end of this year. The bill also includes a provision written by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to sell as much as 1.225 million acres of federal land across the American West in order to build housing. Earlier versions of that proposal that would have auctioned off even more acreage had drawn fierce opposition from conservative hunters and outdoorsmen, and Republican senators from Montana and Idaho had said they would not vote for it. This article originally appeared in


The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nikki Haley hails Trump for US strikes but warns ‘Iran is not done'
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley offered her first praise for President Trump in several months in a Monday op-ed in Israel Hayom, an Israeli right-wing newspaper. She congratulated his decision to strike three Iranian nuclear sites but warned of further retaliation from Iran. 'Those in America that worry about why these strikes took place should understand that those strikes were a move to keep Americans safer. That was a move to take out one of the threats that Iran has used against Americans for years,' Haley wrote in the outlet owned by Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson. Israel Hayom is distributed in Hebrew and is also available online in English. The op-ed is a rare public appearance for Haley, who has largely faded from public view since the 2024 election. When she has spoken on Trump's foreign policy decisions in recent months, she has often criticized them, panning him for a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and slamming his acceptance of a Qatari jet. In the opinion piece, however, Haley praised Trump's decision as 'very well done' while arguing that the United States should continue to be hawkish on Iran for the sake of both America and Israel. 'A safe and secure Israel helps us have a safe and secure America,' she wrote, arguing that the chance of diplomacy with Tehran was thin. 'They always say they want to talk, but the action doesn't match what they want to do,' she wrote. 'Trump was right that while you could kick this can down the road if you wanted, the threat would only get bigger.' She also took aim at the United Nations after Secretary-General António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the strikes, accusing the international arbiter of failing to condemn Iran's moves on ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Haley finished by warning that America and Israel both needed to remain on guard. 'Americans need to be vigilant of our military bases in the region. We need to be vigilant of cyber attacks that could come our way through Iran. Iran is not done,' she wrote. As Trump's ambassador to the United Nations during his first term, Haley made the case both to him and to the global stage that the United States should back out of its 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. In the 2024 Republican presidential primary, during which she attempted to criticize the president, she also positioned herself as both a staunch defender of Israel and a Middle East hawk. After being the last of Trump's primary challengers to bow out, Haley failed to secure a place in his administration (she claimed she wanted no part in it). She is currently at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, and making her way around the speaker circuit.


The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump megabill in danger after fourth GOP senator threatens ‘no' vote on key motion
President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' appears to be in serious danger of stalling on the Senate floor after Montana Sen. Tim Sheehy (R) threatened to vote 'no' on a critical motion to proceed to the legislation because it includes language to sell millions of acres of public lands. 'I oppose the sale of public lands and will vote no on the motion to proceed if it is included,' Sheehy posted on X on Saturday afternoon after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told colleagues to expect a 4 p.m. vote to advance the measure. The legislation includes language sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) directing the secretary of the Interior to sell between 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent of public lands to build more housing throughout the American West. The provision directing the Bureau of Public Lands to sell millions of acres appears to exempt Montana, which was not among the 11 states named in the bill. Three other Republican senators have said they will either vote to proceed to the bill or final passage of the bill for various reasons: Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Thune can only afford three defections and still advance the bill. Republicans control 53 Senate seats. Tillis told reporters after a closed-door meeting with colleagues Saturday that he will vote against the bill because of steep cuts to federal Medicaid spending and urged GOP leaders to return to the Medicaid changes passed by the House last month. 'I'm going to vote no on motion to proceed and on final passage,' he said. 'I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form,' Tillis said in a statement released by his office. He said the bill 'would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities.' 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population,' he warned. Johnson said he's voting 'no' on the motion to proceed because he just got his copy of the legislation at 1:23 am and hasn't had a chance to read it carefully. He wants Senate Republican leaders to add substantially bigger spending cuts to the bill and has proposed targeting mandatory spending programs outside of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 'I'm not going to vote for motion to proceed today. We just got the bill. I got my first copy about 1:23 in the morning, this morning,' he said on 'Fox & Friends Weekend.' Paul is a hard 'no' vote because the legislation includes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion. Thune said his leadership team would know when the vote is held where exactly his colleagues stand on the bill. 'We'll get to the vote here before long and we'll answer all those questions,' he said when asked about the threatened 'no' votes from Sheehy, Tillis, Johnson and Paul.