TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsThe hegemon's veto: Why Washington cannot accept a nuclear Iran
The US campaign against Iran’s nuclear program is not a mission of peace but a violent maintenance of empire; an attempt to bomb a rival into submission before the logic of deterrence makes the hegemon's presence obsolete.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
People stand on the roofs of their houses in Tehran and watch plumes of smoke rise from a series of explosions on March 1, 2026, following the opening salvo of the joint United States-Israeli attacks on Iran. (AFP/Atta Kenare)
T
here is a truth that American nonproliferation policy has never stated plainly: The United States does not oppose nuclear weapons; it opposes nuclear weapons in the hands of states it cannot control.
Nowhere is this contradiction more legible than in the campaign to deny Iran a capability Washington extended, by omission or complicity, to India, Pakistan and Israel. Stripped of its moral framing, the US position is not about global security. It is about who governs the international order, and who must be prevented from contesting it.
Two competing realist frameworks illuminate the dispute. Kenneth Waltz, writing in Foreign Affairs in 2012, argued from the perspective of defensive realism that an Iranian bomb would stabilize the Middle East by correcting Israel's nuclear monopoly.
His logic was structurally sound: Nuclear-armed states are inherently cautious, deterrence has never failed between nuclear dyads and regional instability derives from asymmetry, not Iranian ambition. Waltz concluded that a second nuclear state in the region would restore balance and discipline both parties toward restraint.
John Mearsheimer's offensive realism offers another explanatory framework. Where Waltz asks what nuclear parity does to regional stability, Mearsheimer asks what it does to hegemonic power. The answer is decisive: it is eliminated.
Offensive realism holds that great powers in an anarchic system pursue maximum relative power, with regional hegemony as the ultimate prize. The hegemon's primary strategic objective is therefore not global stability; it is the prevention of any rival achieving comparable dominance in Europe, East Asia or the Persian Gulf.
A nuclear Iran by no means jeopardizes regional peace. It threatens American primacy, which is an altogether different concern.
