The Persian Gulf is burning not just from bombs, but from injustice. Once again, the region and the outer world watches as Israel, emboldened by unchecked power and unconditional Western support, unleashes its aggression, but this time by striking deep into Iranian territory. As always, with the backing of the U.S. diplomatically and militarily, the message to the region is clear: Might makes right. In such an environment, Iran faces a pressing and complex question: Should it go nuclear to protect itself from a regime that acts with impunity?

This question cannot be examined in isolation from the reality of Israel’s behavior. Israel has consistently pursued a policy of aggression toward its neighbors, occupying Palestinian land, bombing Syria and Lebanon at will and now escalating tensions with Iran through targeted assassinations, cyber warfare, and airstrikes. It operates with the arrogance of a nuclear power that faces no accountability. Israel does not deny its nuclear arsenal, nor does it accept international inspections. And yet, it lectures others on threats to regional peace. Iran, on the other hand, has remained under the IAEA’s strict inspection regime and continues to be a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The imbalance is not just legal; it is deeply moral.

The region has turned into an anarchic zone. The idea that the Iran should go nuclear is grounded on the fact that it faces a legitimate existential threat. It is surrounded by U.S. military bases and facing an openly hostile nuclear-armed neighbor, Iran’s leaders see deterrence as a necessity, not a choice. Israel’s track record confirms these fears. It has waged multiple wars, to name a few, Palestine, Syria, Libya and Lebanon; occupied Arab lands for decades and repeatedly violated international law, all without facing accountability and consequences. In contrast, Iran remains one of the few Muslim-majority countries to resist Israeli and Western dominance without backing down. If Iran pursues nuclear weapons, it would give Iran the strategic shield it needs to prevent another Iraq or Libya scenario, both of which saw regime collapse following disarmament and Western intervention.

The current U.S.-Israel confrontation with Iran closely mirrors the 2003 Iraq war in several striking ways; both involve the use of exaggerated threats about weapons of mass destruction as justification for aggression, media-driven propaganda to shape public opinion, and a selective application of international law that punishes unwanted regimes while protecting allies. In both cases, the aggressors frame their actions as preemptive defense, while ignoring inspections, diplomacy or dissenting voices. Just as Iraq suffered years of crippling sanctions, Iran too faces economic warfare meant to weaken it before any potential escalation. Both Iraq and Iran have been demonized not for their actual threats, but for challenging U.S.-Israeli dominance in the region and supporting resistance movements like that of Palestine. Ultimately, the aim in both scenarios appears less about global security and more about eliminating independent powers that refuse to submit to Western and Israeli strategic control. Without learning from the Iraq debacle, the international community risks enabling yet another devastating war based on false propaganda, double standards and material ambition.

Moreover, a nuclear Iran could create a strategic balance that forces adversaries to act more cautiously. Israel currently enjoys unchecked military superiority in the region. This dominance has allowed it to define red lines for others while crossing every red line itself. Take the very example of Gaza and now in Iran. Nuclear deterrence could prevent such one-sided aggression and compel Tel Aviv to adopt a more responsible posture. The logic is simple, when power respects no law, only counter-power can impose restraint.

However, the decision to go nuclear carries real and dangerous consequences even if the threat prompting it is real.  Iran’s decision could trigger a regional arms race. Other countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt might follow suit, further destabilizing a region already on the edge. The introduction of multiple new nuclear players in the region would increase the risks of miscalculation, escalation and even accidental war. Rather than ensuring peace, it could plunge the region into permanent insecurity.

So, what can Iran do in the face of such unprovoked aggression? The answer lies not in surrender, nor in escalation, but in strategic resistance. Iran should continue building its defense capabilities, strengthen regional alliances with countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and deepen ties with non-Western global powers like China and Russia. But most importantly, Iran should lead the call for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone, with Israel and not Iran, at the center of scrutiny. This approach would shift the global spotlight from Tehran to Tel Aviv, exposing the hypocrisy that allows one state to act with injustice and unaccountability.

Iran must also take its case more forcefully to global institutions. It should demand that the United Nations, the IAEA and the International Court of Justice confront Israel’s violations, rather than continuing to police only Iran. Tehran’s fight is not just for national defense, it is for the dignity of a region held hostage by a nuclear apartheid state that believes it answers to no one. Israel’s unprovoked aggression and abusive dominance over weaker states make Iran’s nuclear dilemma both real and urgent. Moreover, the world is also witnessing that the battle for justice will not be won by matching Israel’s weapons, it will also be won by dismantling the injustice that protects them.