By: Ya Libnan Editoria Board
As tensions rise across the Middle East, fears are once again swirling around Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The debate is painfully familiar: Should the West negotiate, pressure, threaten, or even attack to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?
But maybe it’s time to consider an unconventional and counterintuitive approach—let Iran have its bomb.
For over two decades, Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity. But the facts tell a different story. Civilian nuclear reactors require uranium enriched to no more than 3.5%. Iran has enriched uranium to over 60%. This is not for light bulbs and water heaters—this is weapons-grade ambition. Tehran has been bluffing, and the world has been playing along.
So what happens if we stop the game? Suppose the United States and the international community step back and say: Fine. Build your bomb.
And then ask the real question: What can Iran actually do with it?
Iran is one of the most populous and vulnerable countries in the region. If it ever uses a nuclear weapon, the response would be swift and devastating. The country would suffer unimaginable losses. Nuclear war is not a win-or-lose scenario—it’s mutual suicide. Iranian leaders know that. The regime might be extreme, but it isn’t irrational.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. Despite its numerous wars in the Middle East, it has never used them. Its arsenal exists not as an offensive tool, but as a deterrent.
India and Pakistan are another example. Once caught in repeated wars, they haven’t fought a full-scale war since both became nuclear-armed states. Their most recent skirmish lasted just a few days. Possessing the bomb didn’t embolden them—it restrained them.
China, too, has nuclear weapons. It dreams of reunifying with Taiwan, yet despite its massive military power, it has never come close to using a nuclear weapon to achieve that goal.
Even in the Russia-Ukraine war, where brutality and escalation have defined more than three years of fighting, the nuclear threshold has not been crossed. Both nations understand that line must not be breached.
The pattern is clear: the bomb is not a license to destroy—it is a sentence to self-containment.
Iran, meanwhile, is already paying a steep economic price for its nuclear defiance. Sanctions have strangled its economy, driven inflation to crippling levels, and ignited waves of internal unrest. If Iran doesn’t strike a deal with the U.S. and continues down this path of isolation and provocation, the economic pressure will only intensify. That pressure—combined with public frustration and demands for freedom—could ignite something even more powerful than a bomb: an internal revolution.
Let Iran keep investing in a weapon it cannot use. Let it waste precious resources while its people grow poorer and angrier. In doing so, the regime may dig its own grave—from within.
So yes, let Iran have its bomb—and let it eat it.