Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran may or may not yield a deal. Diplomacy, especially in the nuclear domain, is slow, uncertain, and often performative.
At the heart of the Iran debate is its nuclear program. Stripped of moral framing and existential anxieties, nuclear weapons represent something far simpler: deterrence. They are the ultimate insurance policy in a world where military superiority can otherwise be overwhelming. The contrast is stark. North Korea, isolated and economically fragile, enjoys a peculiar kind of stability. Iran, regionally influential yet non-nuclear, finds itself under direct military pressure.
This divergence is not accidental.
Deterrence, Not Destruction
For decades, nuclear weapons have been framed as instruments of apocalypse. Yet, in practice, their most enduring role has been to prevent war rather than wage it. This is what makes the Iranian case so contentious. It is not merely about uranium enrichment levels or centrifuge counts. It is about whether Iran should be allowed access to the same deterrence architecture that others already possess.
And that raises a far more uncomfortable question: how did those “others” acquire it in the first place?
The Myth of Controlled Proliferation
There exists a persistent belief that nuclear technology spread through formal agreements, strategic generosity, or structured alliances. The reality is far messier and far less noble. No nuclear power has ever willingly handed over the blueprint of its most consequential weapon. The history of nuclear proliferation is one of espionage, opportunism, and strategic compulsion.
The United States developed the bomb under the Manhattan Project. The Soviet Union followed not through collaboration, but through an extensive espionage network that penetrated American scientific circles. The first crack in the nuclear monopoly was not negotiated, it was stolen.
From that point onward, proliferation became less about permission and more about persistence.
How the Club Actually Expanded
The UK, despite being a wartime partner in the Manhattan Project, found itself abruptly cut off by the United States after the war under the McMahon Act. Forced into strategic independence, Britain built its own bomb by 1952.
France’s nuclear journey was driven by a deep distrust of reliance on allies, particularly after the Suez Crisis. It developed its arsenal through domestic innovation, while quietly drawing on global scientific exchanges and intelligence inputs.
China’s entry began with Soviet assistance in the 1950s, training scientists, sharing designs, and supporting early infrastructure. But this cooperation collapsed with the Sino-Soviet split. What followed was a determined push by China to complete the program independently, culminating in its first successful test in 1964.
India’s nuclear path was officially framed as peaceful when it conducted its “Smiling Buddha” test in 1974. Yet the foundations of that capability were built through a mix of indigenous development and access to civilian nuclear technology supplied by Western countries under “peaceful use” frameworks.
Pakistan’s program, in contrast, was overtly reactive. Following India’s test, Pakistan moved aggressively to close the gap. Central to this effort was the clandestine procurement network led by A.Q. Khan, who acquired centrifuge designs from Europe and built a global black market supply chain for nuclear components. Pakistan’s nuclear capability was assembled through systematic evasion and intelligence.
In the 1950s and 60s, Israel secured critical assistance from France, including the construction of the Dimona reactor. This was supplemented by covert procurement networks and alleged intelligence operations to secure materials and technology.
North Korea represents perhaps the most defiant trajectory. Initially supported by Soviet and Chinese assistance in building its nuclear infrastructure, Pyongyang gradually transitioned to indigenous development. Even after withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it accelerated its program under intense sanctions.
Across all cases, a pattern emerges. Nuclear capability was never “granted.” It was pursued, acquired, and often concealed, through a combination of scientific effort, geopolitical opportunity, and, at times, outright subversion.
A Club Built on Contradictions
This history complicates the moral clarity with which the global nuclear order often presents itself today. The Non-Proliferation Treaty formalized a world of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” but it did so after multiple states had already secured their place in the hierarchy.
This does not absolve Iran of responsibility, but it does challenge the simplicity of the “rogue state” narrative. History suggests that Iran is not breaking a new pattern, simply following an old one.
The Elephant in the Room
The real question, then, is not whether Iran should seek nuclear capability. It is whether a global order built on selective access, historical accident, and strategic hypocrisy can indefinitely prevent others from doing the same.
As negotiations continue, the deeper issue will remain untouched. In a world where deterrence defines survival, the nuclear club was never meant to be shared. It was always meant to be broken into.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.