Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Lama Al-Rakad
In a world that is supposed to be governed by clear international rules, the nuclear file in the Middle East stands as one of the clearest examples of distorted standards. While one actor is effectively allowed to possess the highest level of deterrent capability without meaningful oversight or binding legal commitments, the rest of the region is prohibited—and in some cases even punished—for developing peaceful nuclear programs under the justification of “preserving stability.”
This reality raises a fundamental question: how can an international system claim to prevent nuclear proliferation while simultaneously tolerating the existence of an undeclared nuclear arsenal in the heart of an already conflict-ridden region?
Allowing Israel to possess nuclear weapons without transparent obligations or credible regional security guarantees for neighboring Arab states—from Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan to Palestine and Egypt—can only be understood through the logic of power, not the logic of law. Arab states, which for decades have endured wars, occupation, and displacement, are asked to trust in a deterrence balance in which they neither participate nor possess any leverage.
More troubling still is that this “exception” does not remain passive. It becomes an active policy framework that blocks any other regional power from approaching nuclear capability, even for peaceful purposes. When attempts by countries such as Iran to develop a nuclear program—even under international monitoring—are treated as an existential threat, while the existing reality of a nuclear-armed state is largely ignored, the result is an imbalance that is difficult to justify either morally or logically.
The contradiction becomes even clearer when compared with other cases, such as Pakistan, which developed nuclear weapons in a complex regional environment but did not face the same sustained pressure once the capability became a fait accompli. This suggests that the issue is not simply the principle of non-proliferation, but rather who is allowed to bypass it without consequence.
Israel, in turn, justifies its nuclear possession as a necessity for self-defense. While this argument may appear persuasive from a narrow strategic perspective, it is perceived very differently by many within the region. For millions of Arabs who have experienced displacement and loss of land and rights, this form of “deterrence” is not seen as protection, but as a mechanism that entrenches an unequal reality—where the security of one side is achieved at the expense of the insecurity of others.
Here lies the core of the dilemma:
What is presented as “security” for one party is experienced as a permanent “threat” by another.
The continuation of this condition does not produce stability; rather, it deepens perceptions of injustice and fuels an unspoken arms dynamic across the region, even if constrained by international pressure. Genuine security cannot be built in a region where a significant portion of its population is asked to accept an equation that denies them minimum standards of balance or fairness.
The solution does not lie in expanding nuclear proliferation, but in redefining regional security on an inclusive and equitable basis. This requires one clear principle: either all actors are subject to the same rules, or those rules will continue to lose credibility.
The call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons is not merely an idealistic proposal, but an ethical and political necessity. However, it cannot be achieved without addressing the most sensitive point: subjecting all parties—without exception—to the same standards, the same obligations, and the same level of accountability.
Without this, discussions about “non-proliferation” will remain rhetorical, while the reality continues to reinforce monopolies of power and the marginalization of others’ right to security and dignity.
Lama Al-Rakad is a Syrian journalist and writer.
