The Western consensus on dismantling Iran’s nuclear program has once again revived the question of whether the Middle East has any real right to possess nuclear weapons.
For decades, the populist Arab narrative has held that the veto — repeatedly wielded against any Arab or Muslim state’s ambition to join the nuclear powers club — is an extension of the old Crusades era (1096–1291).
This narrative, which “religionizes the veto,” draws its popular legitimacy from various “evidences” that fuel this religious interpretation to answer the bigger question: Why is it only the Muslims whose nuclear aspirations are consistently crushed? Especially given that the principle of reciprocity — deeply rooted in international law and relations among states — does not legally or morally deny them the right to possess weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms.
The fact is, the West itself has done plenty to reinforce the credibility of this populist narrative. This is evident in its double standards in enforcing international law — particularly when it comes to Israel — and its awareness that Islamic law currently lacks meaningful leverage in practical governance across the Middle East. It also knows that building functional nuclear industries remains years away for most Arab states.
Nonetheless, the West has never stopped stoking suspicions and fears by claiming that legitimising weapons of mass destruction among state-aligned religious intellectuals signals a new level of Western anxiety — one that the region could pursue nuclear energy under the cover of official religious institutions.
Yet these “populists” seldom push the conversation into the political realm, which would examine the structure of states and the nature of the political regimes that govern them. Is the Western veto actually driven by fears that undemocratic regimes might acquire nuclear weapons — with the decision to use them left solely in the hands of a single “leader” who faces no parliamentary or judicial accountability?
However, the political explanation struggles to hold up. Non-democratic states like China, North Korea, and Russia all possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the nuclear trajectories of India and Pakistan continue to raise valid questions about how they evaded tight international controls on nuclear proliferation — and joined the club of nuclear states.
Some observers argue that Pakistan’s success in acquiring nuclear weapons came during a brief window of geopolitical instability after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Pakistan’s geographic distance and the limited reach of Western air power were likely the only factors that spared it from military intervention.
Israel, meanwhile, remains the clearest example that illustrates this “religious bias” or “religious sorting” among states that receive nuclear assistance from the West — which alone holds the power to open or shut the “Pandora’s box” for any nation aspiring to nuclear capability, even using force and military intervention if necessary (as seen with Iraq and Iran).
No serious observer can deny that Israel — regardless of its governing system — is a state defined by a “religious minority/Jewish” identity, where the far right wields considerable influence. Decisions of war and peace often aim to satisfy this ferocious and aggressive current. During the aggression on Gaza, the option of using a “nuclear bomb” was floated as a way to secure a victory that had eluded them after the war entered its second year without Tel Aviv achieving any of its declared goals.
In November 2023, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu said that dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza was one of the options to respond to Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October.
Yet Western countries enthusiastically supported Israel in building its nuclear arsenal. For example:
- France built the Dimona nuclear reactor.
- The UK and Norway supplied the heavy water for the reactor.
- The United States — directly and indirectly — provided enriched uranium, nuclear valves, and guidance technology (including Pershing-2 missile guidance systems) for the Jericho-3 missile and advanced long-range fighter bombers (F-15 and F-16) capable of delivering nuclear bombs.
- Washington also supplied Israel with supercomputers used to simulate nuclear tests and verify the viability of its arsenal.
- Germany delivered advanced Dolphin-class submarines capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.
- Belgium provided Israel with uranium ore from its former colony, Zaire.
In 1979, French intelligence, with the help of Mossad, sabotaged the core of the nuclear reactor France had sold to Iraq before it could be shipped. NATO toppled Gaddafi, and Libya faced severe Western economic sanctions.
Western policymakers rarely run out of ways to “muddy the waters” when it comes to defending themselves from accusations of “religious sorting” — especially when the issue is the Western veto against a Muslim East aspiring to nuclear capability. Its defenders insist that “a nuclear Middle East is not a secure Middle East.”
Daniel Serwer, a professor at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, argues that any decisive move by Iran toward nuclear weapons could throw the doors wide open. He warned that if that happened, within months the region could see four new nuclear powers in addition to Israel’s existing nuclear capability.
Serwer noted that only minutes separate the launch times of missiles from the potential nuclear capitals of the Middle East — a region where mutual hostility and deep misunderstanding run rampant.
No one in the East truly believes what is said in the West — especially as the intertwining of religion and politics, with religion often overriding politics, remains justified. Post-WWII slogans, such as Europe’s “Judeo-Christian identity,” still echo in official Western political discourse whenever fear of Islamic resurgence grows in Western capitals.
For example, the European People’s Party — the largest political bloc in Europe — once stated that the continent shares a “common Jewish-Christian culture and heritage” and that “we must protect our European way of life by upholding our Christian values.”
In an opinion piece, Flemish Prime Minister Jan Jambon echoed this “Jewish-Christian heritage,” placing it alongside Greek democracy and Roman rule of law as the three core pillars of European identity.
During the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran, some Islamic outlets cited views rooted in the deeply held Arab and Muslim populist conviction that the Western veto against any Arab nuclear dreams stems from Israel not merely being an extension of this so-called Western identity but serving the ambitions of Western religious movements that fear the revival of Islamic civilization — including Christian Zionist movements that believe Jewish dominance over the Middle East is necessary for the Second Coming of Christ.
These groups, with profound influence over U.S. decision-making, view any Arab or Muslim state — regardless of its leaders — as a threat to be contained.
Ultimately, the developments surrounding Iran’s nuclear program confirm a larger reality: that the battle over nuclear power is part of a broader civilizational struggle — and that the West is determined to keep the Islamic world from accessing nuclear capability, even if that means resorting to war.
