Bilal Bashir Bhat
The United States’ recent foreign policy has created a new sense of anxiety in global politics. The intervention in Venezuela and the removal of its leadership, which is being accused of trying to gain control of oil reserves, have raised questions around the world about whether powerful countries are now willing to change governments in order to openly seize resources. The attack on Iran and the assassination of its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have deepened fears that sovereignty is no longer a sufficient defense for weak states.
The United States has for years justified its foreign interventions in the name of democracy, counterterrorism, or regional stability. But when such actions are taken in oil-rich countries or states with important geographical positions, these claims are viewed with suspicion in many capitals around the world. In international politics, perception determines the direction of policy, and at the moment, the perception is that the balance of power has shifted.
If the message that non-nuclear countries are helpless in the face of external intervention becomes widespread, then every state will redefine its security. Traditional military power, diplomatic relations and assurances from international institutions may no longer be considered sufficient. In such a situation, nuclear capability can be seen as a last line of defense.
There are examples from around the world. North Korea openly adopted the position that its nuclear program guarantees the survival of its regime. Major powers such as Russia and China also consider nuclear balance as a means of avoiding direct war. If the events with Iran are taken as an example, many countries in the Middle East can conclude that nuclear capability is the real deterrent.
In such circumstances, the global nuclear non-proliferation regime may also come under pressure. The International Atomic Energy Agency and nuclear non-proliferation treaties can only be effective when states believe that adhering to the rules makes them safe, not weak.
But the other side of this thinking is very dangerous. If a nuclear race begins in the Middle East, even a minor mistake can turn into a catastrophic conflict. More nuclear states means more danger, more uncertainty and more destruction.
