Analysis: U.S. Military Threats Against Iran Risk Triggering a Global Nuclear Domino Effect

Analysis: U.S. Military Threats Against Iran Risk Triggering a Global Nuclear Domino Effect

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's escalating threats of military action against Iran are raising alarms among security analysts who warn that a strike intended to curb nuclear ambitions could instead spark a dangerous cascade of proliferation, destabilizing the Middle East and undermining decades of non-proliferation efforts.

In late January 2026, President Donald Trump issued a stark ultimatum to Tehran, demanding it permanently dismantle its uranium enrichment program, curb ballistic missile development, and sever support for regional proxy groups. To underscore the threat, the Pentagon repositioned the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and bolstered bomber assets within striking range of Iran. Administration officials frame this as a decisive moment to pressure a regime weakened by economic woes and domestic unrest.

However, this aggressive posture carries profound and potentially counterproductive risks, according to non-proliferation scholars. At its core, the strategy threatens to validate a grim lesson for nations on the nuclear threshold: that restraint offers no protection, while possessing a bomb might.

"The fundamental calculus of security is being rewritten in real time," says Dr. Evelyn Reed, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies. "If you are Libya, which gave up its program and saw regime change, or Ukraine, which gave up its weapons and faced invasion, what is the lesson? An attack on Iran, a state that has technically stayed within the bounds of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, would scream that the only real deterrent is a finished weapon."

Iran represents the quintessential "threshold state"—possessing the technical capability to build a nuclear weapon but having stopped short of weaponization. History shows that destabilizing such a state is perilous. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to fears of "loose nukes" and wandering scientists. The A.Q. Khan network demonstrated how nuclear expertise can be trafficked globally. A fractured Iran could lose control of materials, see factions sell knowledge, or trigger a desperate rush by actors to secure a deterrent before a collapse.

Beyond Iran's borders, the repercussions would ripple outward. Regional rivals like Saudi Arabia have explicitly stated they would match any Iranian nuclear capability. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's 2023 declaration that "we will get one" if Iran does was not an idle threat. A U.S. strike, particularly one perceived as serving Israeli security over Gulf Arab interests, could push Riyadh to fast-track its own program or deepen its already substantial defense cooperation with nuclear-armed Pakistan.

"The Gulf monarchies are terrified of a regional arms race, but they are more terrified of being left vulnerable," notes Karim Al-Farsi, a political analyst based in Dubai. "American protection has proven selective. If Washington acts against Iran primarily for its own or Israel's reasons, the message to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi is clear: you are on your own."

The international system built to manage these risks would also suffer a crippling blow. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) inspection regime in Iran, however contentious, provided a channel for verification. Military action ejects inspectors, destroys monitoring continuity, and signals that compliance offers no safety. "Why play by the rules if the rules don't protect you?" asks Dr. Reed. "The credibility of the entire IAEA framework is at stake."

The chain reaction may not stop in the Middle East. In Northeast Asia, U.S. allies Japan and South Korea rely on American extended deterrence. A destabilized Iran and a proliferating region would force a sobering reassessment in Seoul and Tokyo about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees. Turkey, long frustrated by its status within NATO's nuclear sharing arrangements, could see renewed impetus for an independent program.

Ultimately, the Trump administration's gamble may achieve the opposite of its stated aim. Rather than cementing U.S. influence and a nuclear-free Iran, it could accelerate the very proliferation it seeks to prevent, drive allies to hedge their bets, and teach the world's most dangerous lesson: that in an insecure world, the bomb is the only currency that matters.

Reader Reactions

Mark Richardson, Retired Foreign Service Officer (Virginia): "This analysis hits the nail on the head. We are playing with fire. The 2025 strikes already damaged the norms of the non-proliferation regime. Doubling down now isn't strategy; it's a dangerous addiction to coercion that will leave America less secure and the world more nuclearized."

Sarah Chen, Graduate Student in International Security (Stanford, CA): "It's a tragic paradox. The pursuit of absolute security by one state through military force creates absolute insecurity for everyone else. The data from past cases like Libya and Ukraine is clear. We're ignoring the historical record at our peril."

James "Mac" Macalister, Talk Radio Host (Texas): "This is pure appeasement nonsense! Iran's regime has been the world's leading sponsor of terror for decades. They've cheated on every deal. The only 'lesson' they understand is strength. If we don't act now, they'll get the bomb anyway and hold the world hostage. All this hand-wringing about 'proliferation cascades' is what got us here!"

Priya Sharma, Energy Market Analyst (London): "The geopolitical risk is just one layer. Imagine the immediate impact on global oil markets and shipping lanes. A conflict would send energy prices into the stratosphere and tip fragile economies into recession. The economic fallout alone should give every world leader pause."

This analysis is adapted from a commentary originally published by The Conversation, featuring insights from Dr. Farah N. Jan of the University of Pennsylvania.