Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have ignited a “threshold war” that threatens to rewrite the rules of nuclear deterrence, potentially triggering a dangerous global arms race as Russia warns of “extremely dangerous” consequences.
Key Takeaways
- The Israel-Iran conflict has escalated into a full-scale war with strikes on nuclear facilities, marking a dangerous precedent in international relations
- Russia has issued warnings about potential nuclear catastrophe, describing the situation as “extremely dangerous”
- The conflict may accelerate nuclear proliferation as nations conclude nuclear weapons are essential for defense
- Diplomatic efforts have collapsed with Iran canceling scheduled nuclear talks with the U.S.
- President Trump initially preferred diplomacy but pivoted to support continued military action
A Dangerous New Era in Nuclear Confrontation
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran represents a troubling new chapter in nuclear rivalries. Beginning on June 13, 2025, Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have established what experts are calling a “threshold war” – where a nuclear power uses military force to prevent an enemy from acquiring nuclear weapons. This unprecedented escalation has resulted in significant casualties on both sides and set a dangerous precedent that could normalize attacks on nuclear infrastructure worldwide. The international community watches with growing alarm as this conflict threatens decades of nuclear governance based on deterrence.
The fallout from these attacks extends beyond the immediate military consequences. “The stakes could not be higher, as Iranian officials have called the attack ‘a declaration of war’ and vowed that destroyed nuclear facilities ‘would be rebuilt,'” according to Iranian officials. This determination suggests that rather than preventing nuclear proliferation, Israel’s actions may actually accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions, creating a more dangerous regional landscape than before the conflict began.
2 of 2:
Global powers have responded with a combination of military precautions, diplomatic initiatives, and calls for de-escalation:
1. The U.S. has clarified it was informed but not involved in Israel's strikes, with President Trump warning Iran against attacking U.S. assets…
— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) June 15, 2025
Russia Warns of Nuclear Catastrophe
Russian officials have emerged as vocal critics of the escalating situation, particularly regarding attacks near Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabko has issued stark warnings about potential issues at the Bushehr nuclear power plant due to Israel’s ongoing strikes. Ryabko described the situation as “extremely dangerous” and emphasized that the lack of damage thus far is merely a “happy coincidence,” with substantial risks remaining. These warnings highlight the potential for this regional conflict to trigger more widespread nuclear concerns.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has condemned the attacks, reaffirming that “nuclear facilities must never be attacked regardless of the context or circumstances.” The IAEA’s General Conference has previously established that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.” Despite these clear international norms, the attacks have continued, raising questions about the effectiveness of global nuclear governance.
Accelerating Global Nuclear Proliferation
Perhaps the most alarming consequence of this conflict is its potential to supercharge global nuclear proliferation. Experts fear that Israel’s actions may inadvertently demonstrate to other nations that nuclear weapons are essential for national defense. Robert Kelly, a nuclear expert, observes, “If you look at the last five or six years, you’ve got a repeated series of incidents that demonstrate nuclear weapons are a really, really powerful deterrence.” This perception could lead to both horizontal proliferation (existing nuclear states expanding their arsenals) and vertical proliferation (non-nuclear states acquiring weapons).
“As soon as this war is over, I think it’s pretty clear they’re going to go back and build these things again. I’d be really shocked if they didn’t,” stated Robert Kelly.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) already warns of a new, riskier arms race emerging, with the United States and Russia modernizing their arsenals while China rapidly produces new warheads. Saudi Arabia has indicated it would seek nuclear weapons if Iran acquires them, potentially triggering a regional arms race. Additionally, some traditional U.S. allies have expressed uncertainty about relying on American defense commitments, leading to discussions about developing their own nuclear deterrents. This cascade effect could dramatically reshape the global security landscape.
Trump Administration’s Response
President Trump’s approach to the crisis reveals the complex calculations involved in managing such a volatile situation. “U.S. President Donald Trump’s response to the strikes reveals this dynamic starkly. Initially opposing military action and preferring diplomacy to ‘bombing the hell out of’ Iran, Trump pivoted dramatically after the strikes began, and warned that ‘there’s more to come. A lot more,'” President Donald Trump stated. This shift reflects the difficulty of maintaining diplomatic options once military action has commenced, particularly when nuclear facilities are involved.
The United States has increased its military presence in the Middle East while providing Israel with operational support. However, differences in approach exist between the two allies. While President Trump seeks regional peace, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu views the war as necessary for Israel’s security. This tension between allied perspectives complicates efforts to find a resolution to the conflict that satisfies all parties while preventing further nuclear escalation.
The economic ramifications of this conflict also loom large, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz – a critical chokepoint for global oil exports. Any disruption to this vital shipping lane, particularly if Iran were to attempt to close it in retaliation, could trigger severe global economic consequences, further raising the stakes of this already dangerous situation. President Trump and his administration must navigate these complex economic and security concerns simultaneously.
