WOULD IT WANT TO?
But is Iran likely to go down that path? Why would it want to do this?
According to nuclear deterrence theory, governments choose to pursue nuclear weapons primarily to deter nuclear or conventional attacks from their adversaries. In this sense, nuclear weapons are never meant to be used, but their mere possession creates an untenable risk for a potential attacker.
For example, the United States is extremely unlikely to attack North Korea because it now has nuclear-capable weapons to strike Japan, South Korea or the US territory of Guam.
A nuclear weapon would therefore theoretically give Iran enormous latitude in the region, as its neighbours would be very reluctant to attack a nuclear weapon state. It would also allow Iran to respond to a hypothetical Israeli nuclear strike.
However, experts and commentators seem to be divided on whether the war has made nuclear weapons a necessity for Iran.
Yes, the US and Israel would likely not have attacked Iran if it already possessed nuclear warheads. However, Iran has also withstood months of attacks without them, arguably gaining the upper hand against much more powerful states.
It has proven its ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, which provides a fairly effective economic deterrent against future attacks without the unwanted attention of an active nuclear weapons programme.
It is entirely possible Iran has kept its stockpile of enriched uranium for so long to use purely as a diplomatic bargaining chip to gain security assurances and reintegration into the global economy.
