The situation between the United States and Iran is tense and growing more serious. On January 28, 2026, President Donald Trump raised the stakes, warning of possible military action against Iran if it didn’t meet U.S. demands. The Pentagon has already moved significant naval assets, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, closer to Iran.
The U.S. wants Iran to halt its uranium enrichment, limit missile development, and stop supporting various proxy groups in the Middle East. With Iran facing economic troubles and large protests, the Trump administration sees this as a chance to pressure Tehran.
However, experts in Middle Eastern politics express concern. Military action could lead to unintended consequences, including the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran is not a weak state; it has a population of around 93 million and an established military, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This means a sudden government collapse is unlikely.
Even if the regime were to fall, it’s uncertain what would follow. The opposition is fragmented and lacks the support needed to lead Iran effectively. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, nobody knows what would happen next, and any instability could create further risks.
Iran’s nuclear capabilities are a significant factor. The country, described as a “threshold state,” can produce nuclear weapons but hasn’t crossed that line yet. This situation poses three risks: fragmentation of command over nuclear materials, incentives to sell nuclear expertise, and a race among factions seeking deterrence.
History shows that instability in nuclear states can lead to dangerous outcomes. For instance, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s raised alarms over missing nuclear materials. The events surrounding A.Q. Khan, who spread nuclear knowledge from Pakistan to countries like North Korea and Iran, demonstrate how rapidly expertise can move across borders.
Any U.S. military action could send a message to other nations considering nuclear development. Iran’s previous restraint not to develop nuclear weapons was strategic. However, attacks in 2025 and ongoing threats suggest that remaining non-nuclear offers no real sense of security. This could encourage other countries to pursue nuclear capabilities for their own safety.
For instance, Saudi Arabia has openly stated it might pursue nuclear weapons if Iran does, reflecting concerns about its security if U.S. promises falter. Likewise, Turkey has expressed interest in developing its capabilities, showcasing regional anxieties about stability and alliances.
Concerns echo across the globe. Countries like South Korea and Japan, which have relied on U.S. nuclear assurances, may begin to reconsider their stance if they see further instability in the region.
The pressures on the current U.S.-led security framework are mounting. Arab Gulf states have been urging the Trump administration not to escalate tensions with Iran, revealing unease concerning American reliability. If these nations decide to diversify their security partnerships, it could change the balance of power in the region.
The current tensions might ultimately lead to a new world order, where countries believe that possessing nuclear weapons is the only way to ensure their security. If this trend continues, it could change the dynamics of international relations significantly, as nations seek their own deterrent measures rather than relying on the assurances of others.
For further reading, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has valuable information on global nuclear agreements and safety protocols. Their credibility can be crucial in maintaining international norms, especially when faced with the evolving geopolitical landscape.
