Nuclear brink: Could US and Israel's war on Iran turn atomic?

Washington DC — When David Sacks, a prominent Silicon Valley investor and venture capitalist — appointed by US President Donald Trump as the White House AI and Crypto tsar — cautioned that Israel might consider using nuclear weapons against Iran should the conflict escalate, it was, perhaps for the first time, that a senior American official openly acknowledged that Israel possesses nuclear warheads and could deploy them in the war.

Sacks, who is not a traditional defence official, also proposed the US "declare victory and get out" of the US-Israeli war against Tehran.

Trump responded to his advisor's conspicuous statement about the use of Israeli nuclear weapons, stating: "Israel wouldn't do that. Israel would never do that."

However, Sacks is not the only one warning of a nuclear war in the Middle East.

In an interview with Middle East Eye, John Mearsheimer, an American political scientist and international relations scholar, warned: "If the Israelis lose in Iran … they will be fully aware that they will have enraged the Iranian body populace. They will be fully aware that an Iran with nuclear weapons will be very, very dangerous from Israel’s perspective.

"If they can’t prevent that through conventional means, then we get to a scenario where they think about using nuclear weapons. And as we know, there is no state on the planet that is more ruthless."

Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at MIT and a leading expert on ballistic missile defence systems, has also voiced direct concern that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could resort to using a nuclear weapon against Iran if its conventional options are exhausted.

In a recent interview he warned that this could trigger Iranian retaliation, even if Tehran must hastily assemble a device.

World Health Organization officials are already preparing for a potential nuclear catastrophe should the war escalate.

Hanan Balkhy, its regional director for the eastern Mediterranean, told POLITICO that the UN staff are monitoring the fallout of US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s atomic sites and remain "vigilant" for any type of nuclear threat.

"The worst-case scenario is a nuclear incident, and that's something that worries us the most," Balkhy said, adding the staff are prepared for a nuclear incident in its "broader sense," including an attack on a nuclear facility or the use of a weapon.

Completely 'off the table'

As Iran vows to fight "until complete victory" and refuses to concede to the demands of the US and Israel, at least publicly, while still maintaining its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium, some analysts, however, suggest that the current conflict may not escalate into a nuclear war no matter how long the war stretches.

"I would say for the record, based on my 35 years of experience working in this field, the use of threat of use of nuclear weapons have no place in the current war in the Middle East region or in any conflict given that these are indiscriminate and mass terror weapons," Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, told TRT World.

Kimball, who leads research and advocacy on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons policy, at the association that works to reduce the threats posed by the world's most dangerous weapons, said: "Although, Israel and the US, both nuclear-armed states, may be frustrated that their ambitious war aims cannot be achieved through bombardment of Iran with conventional weapons, the use of nuclear weapons should be considered completely 'off the table' and would not be seen as a credible threat in the context of the present conflict."

Nearly four weeks into the war that the US and Israel launched against Iran, hundreds of people have been killed, mostly civilians. Military and civilian infrastructure in the Middle East has been destroyed, the global oil market has been rattled, and the Gulf region's security has been shattered.

Even with Israel killing senior Iranian political and military leaders and both the US and Israel striking Iranian energy infrastructure, Iran’s fighting capability remains intact.

Tehran persists in deploying drones and ballistic missiles against Israel, US bases, and Gulf allies' energy infrastructure. Tehran has also shown it can impede oil transit via the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for 20 percent of global oil flows.

With NATO and European allies refusing to get drawn into the war, US President Trump has sought to use both a carrot and stick approach, combining strikes with diplomacy to achieve his stated war goals.

On Monday, Trump claimed that his administration is in talks with a "top person" in Iran regarding potential negotiations.

But Tehran's parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated that "no negotiations" were in progress, accusing the US leader of market manipulation.

Pakistan has been trying to mediate US-Iran talks. This follows confirmation from the White House about a call between Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, and Trump regarding the conflict.

While Islamabad has stated its readiness to provide a venue for peace talks — which neither side has formally announced yet — Israel, along with Gulf nations Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, continue to receive renewed drone and missile strikes.

Nuclear threat ineffective in 'coercing' enemies

As the war continues, Kimball believes that countries' threats of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states are ineffective in changing their stance.

"History demonstrates that nuclear threats by the United States and other nuclear-armed states against non-nuclear weapon states are not effective in coercing their behavior or forcing them to capitulate," he said.

Kimball, however, cautioned that both Trump and Netanyahu possess the exclusive, virtually unrestrained power to authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

"Trump and Netanyahu have been operating outside the bounds of national laws and international law, including the Law of Armed Conflict, and each man has the sole, nearly unchecked authority to order the use of nuclear weapons."

Casualties from the conflict so far have surpassed 1,500 in Iran and 1,000 in Lebanon. Israel has reported 15 deaths, alongside 13 US military personnel and Gulf region civilians. US-Israeli strikes in Iran and Israeli land invasion in southern Lebanon have displaced millions.

Whether this ends in permanent ceasefire, prolonged stalemate, or further escalation, some analysts argue the possibility of nuclear conflict "remain low" in the Middle East.

"I think the risks of the US and the use of nuclear weapons by Israel to end the conflict thankfully remain low. Washington insists that its conventional strikes are succeeding, and Israeli officials have projected weeks more strikes. The main challenge for the US now is reopening the Strait of Hormuz and nuclear strikes are not a good option for that, even if you leave aside the moral and political objections. So, I think this worst-case scenario can be avoided," Richard Gowan, programme director with the International Crisis Group, told TRT World.

Gowan, who oversees Crisis Group's work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, said if the US did use nuclear weapons, it would face global condemnation and the Gulf Arabs would be among those joining in the criticism. 

"Even countries that have soft-peddled criticisms of the war could not avoid condemning nuclear use. And many might fear that Russia or China will exploit the precedent in future to justify nuclear use of their own. Trump has always had a healthy fear of nuclear war, and is unlikely to go down this road despite all his bellicose talk," he said.