Unconventional weapons — including nuclear, chemical, biological, and cyber weaponry — hold particular significance in global power dynamics and national security strategies. Their ability to alter the balance of war, inflict mass destruction, and reset regional or global power structures makes them indispensable to modern deterrence.
In the chaotic architecture of today’s international system — where no central authority can enforce global treaties — such weapons have become primary tools for survival, especially for states facing existential threats.
Rapid technological advancement, intensifying regional conflicts, and declining trust in international arms-control mechanisms have made the management of unconventional weapons increasingly complex. The looming confrontation between Tehran and Tel Aviv stands as a critical case study in evaluating the role of these weapons in future Middle Eastern warfare.
Unconventional vs. Prohibited Weapons
Unconventional weapons are defined by their destructive capacity and wide-reaching societal and environmental impact. This category includes nuclear, chemical, biological, and cyber weapons. In contrast, prohibited weapons are those explicitly banned under international law, such as those outlined in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).
While some unconventional weapons — notably chemical and biological — are internationally prohibited, cyber weapons remain largely unregulated due to their novelty and the absence of a comprehensive global legal framework.
This distinction is crucial in the context of Iran-Israel tensions, as enforcement and verification challenges — especially concerning cyber warfare — continue to complicate global arms control efforts.
Strategic Value of Unconventional Weapons
Unconventional weapons play a central role in both military and diplomatic strategy, with each type offering unique strategic advantages:
- Nuclear Weapons: A key pillar of deterrence theory, nuclear arms function as existential safeguards and strategic equalisers. Concepts such as “mutually assured destruction” exemplify their role in preventing large-scale wars between nuclear-armed states.
- Chemical & Biological Weapons: Favoured by states seeking low-cost alternatives to conventional military strength, these weapons offer asymmetric advantages. Despite international bans, weak enforcement and poor verification have made them appealing to actors looking to exploit legal grey areas.
- Cyber Weapons: Enabled by digital advancement, these tools can sabotage infrastructure, conduct espionage, and paralyse an opponent without physical confrontation. Their untraceable nature and global reach make them difficult to regulate and increasingly attractive as instruments of warfare and influence.
Strategically, these weapons are more than military assets — they are bargaining chips in geopolitical negotiations. In an international environment marked by distrust and instability, they serve as leverage for state survival and political dominance.
As technologies like artificial intelligence evolve, the vulnerabilities of global security regimes — particularly disarmament and arms monitoring systems — are only expected to grow.
Cyber Warfare: The New Frontier
Cyber weapons are increasingly recognised as a class of unconventional weapons due to their asymmetric and wide-reaching impacts. They can target national power grids, financial systems, and military networks without triggering a traditional battlefield response, yet cause cascading effects as damaging as conventional warfare.
Their defining characteristics include:
- Indirect Impact: Capable of disabling economies or national security frameworks.
- Low-Cost, High-Impact: They offer states with fewer resources a chance to strike at stronger adversaries.
- Untraceability: Their covert nature makes detection, attribution, and regulation nearly impossible.
Because of their technical complexity and legal ambiguity, cyber weapons remain outside most existing arms-control frameworks. A clear example of their strategic utility was Israel’s deployment of the Stuxnet virus in 2010 to sabotage Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility — a turning point in digital warfare history.
Likelihood of Use in Future Iran–Israel Conflict
If open war breaks out between Iran and Israel, the probability of Israel resorting to unconventional weapons is high, especially given its track record in Gaza.
Dr. Munir Al-Bursh, Director of the Health Ministry in Gaza, has previously accused Israeli forces of using unidentified weapons in northern Gaza that caused victims’ bodies to “melt.” Human Rights Watch (Europe and Middle East division) has confirmed Israel’s use of incendiary thermal weapons in past assaults.
Given these precedents and the existential threat posed by Israel, Iran may be compelled to reassess its defence doctrine. While Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Abbas Araghchi has affirmed that Tehran will not withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) despite repeated attacks on its nuclear infrastructure, Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity — along with its record of war crimes — could pressure Tehran into revisiting its strategic calculus.
Indeed, Dr. Kamal Kharazi, head of Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, has hinted at the possibility of Tehran modifying its nuclear and military doctrine in light of regional developments.
Challenges to the Arms Control System
Despite efforts to curb the development and spread of unconventional weapons through treaties such as the NPT, CWC, and BWC, current arms control regimes face major challenges:
- Mutual Distrust: States often distrust each other’s compliance. Israel, for example, is not a signatory to the NPT and therefore avoids international scrutiny over its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, Iran — despite being a member — faces constant accusations of non-transparency and heavy international pressure.
- Verification Gaps: Biological and cyber weapons are notoriously hard to detect and monitor. Attacks such as Stuxnet have exposed the limitations of existing verification tools. Israel’s non-membership in the NPT further shields it from oversight.
- Regional Arms Race: The deep geopolitical rivalry between Iran and Israel incentivises both sides to expand and modernise their arsenals. With U.S. backing, Israel has disrupted the regional balance of power and positioned itself as a destabilising actor in the Middle East.
- Systemic Weakness: The NPT has struggled to maintain credibility. Review conferences in 2015 and 2022 collapsed over disagreements, including proposals to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Meanwhile, major powers like the U.S. continue increasing nuclear weapons budgets, and countries like the UK are expanding their stockpiles.
The Future of Arms Control in the Region
In any Iran-Israel confrontation, cyber warfare is likely to dominate due to its elusive nature and strategic implications. Incidents like Stuxnet and suspected Iranian cyberattacks on Israeli infrastructure underscore the growing relevance of digital weapons.
The absence of a universally accepted definition for “cyberattack,” combined with the lack of effective verification mechanisms, continues to block the creation of a robust arms-control framework.
In such an environment, unconventional weapons will remain central to deterrence, power projection, and survival strategies, particularly in volatile regions like the Middle East.
Despite calls for disarmament, mistrust, poor enforcement, and escalating geopolitical competition have made significant arms reductions nearly impossible. Instead, non-nuclear states are increasingly exploring acquisition pathways in response to regional insecurities.
In the existential, identity-driven conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv, both sides may resort to reinforcing the credibility of their threats — not only to deter attacks, but to shape the future balance of regional power.
