Middle East

---

The conflict between the United States and Iran exposes a troubling contradiction within the international system: the rules do not appear to apply equally to every country. The major powers retain nuclear weapons, modernize their arsenals, and attempt to decide which other nations may develop similar capabilities. This inequality weakens the credibility of the international order and reinforces the perception that security depends more on military strength than on international law.

The United States argues that it seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, protect its allies, and reduce the threat posed by Iranian missiles and armed groups supported by Tehran. These concerns should not be dismissed. Iran must also answer for its lack of nuclear transparency, its threats against other countries, and its support for organizations that have attacked civilians and foreign forces.

However, these accusations do not automatically give the United States the right to launch preventive attacks against another nation. Without clear evidence of an imminent attack, using military force before exhausting diplomacy creates a dangerous precedent: any powerful country could claim that it feels threatened and therefore has the right to strike first.

The comparison with North Korea reveals an uncomfortable reality. North Korea developed nuclear weapons and received sanctions and international condemnation, but it has not been attacked directly because it possesses the ability to cause devastating retaliation. Iran, without an equivalent nuclear deterrent, was considered a less dangerous target. This sends the world a message that directly contradicts the goal of nuclear nonproliferation: countries may conclude that obtaining a nuclear weapon is the only reliable way to prevent foreign intervention.

This logic will not make the world safer. It encourages an arms race in which every threatened government will attempt to obtain the most destructive weapon possible.

Iran should not develop nuclear weapons, but the same moral standard must apply to everyone. The United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea must also accept meaningful mechanisms for reducing, monitoring, and controlling their arsenals. There cannot be one standard for allies and another for adversaries.

The responsible solution is neither to destroy Iran nor to allow it to act without limits. A verifiable agreement is needed, including permanent international inspections, limits on uranium enrichment, guarantees that Iran will not be attacked if it complies, the gradual removal of sanctions, and regional negotiations concerning missiles and collective security. Israel and the Arab states should also participate in a process designed to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Furthermore, no party should attack civilians, medical facilities, schools, celebrations, essential infrastructure, or the territory of third countries. The life of an Iranian, Israeli, American, or Arab child has exactly the same value.

The United States has the right to protect its population and armed forces, but its power also gives it greater responsibility. Iran has the right