AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): International relations analysts argue that accusing states of pursuing weapons of mass destruction has, for years, become a fixed pillar of the foreign policy of the United States. Regardless of the accuracy of such claims, this approach has frequently paved the way for pressure, sanctions, and even military intervention.
Observers maintain that the nature of U.S. foreign policy makes survival difficult for many states unless they possess strategic deterrence. A prominent example is North Korea, which until a few years ago faced direct threats from Washington, but has since acquired an arsenal that some analysts describe as approaching great-power status.
From Deterrence to a Shift in the Balance
Reports indicate that Pyongyang, in addition to strategic nuclear capabilities capable of targeting the U.S. mainland, has obtained a range of tactical weapons and even hypersonic systems—an area in which, according to some assessments, Washington has fallen behind rivals such as China and Russia.
Within this framework, some analysts remark ironically that whenever the United States stops complaining about a country’s nuclear weapons, it signals that the state has reached a level of deterrence at which Washington can no longer act “without cost”. Conversely, countries lacking such capabilities are often subjected to waves of accusations and threats that, in some cases, have culminated in military invasion.
Iraq: A Bitter Lesson
The clearest illustration of this pattern is Iraq, which was attacked on the claims of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Years of war and occupation followed, leaving millions dead, wounded, or displaced, without those allegations ever being proven. Critics stress, however, that this experience has not prevented the same logic from being applied to other states in the region.
Iran at the Center of Pressure
Over recent decades, the United States has kept Iran on its list of priority targets, repeatedly asserting that Tehran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons in an effort to keep the “option of attacking Iran” alive. According to critics, this narrative has been reproduced in Western media for more than 20 years.
At the same time, recent developments and direct tensions between Iran and the Israeli regime have added new complexity. Iran’s missile and drone response to an Israeli airstrike on its consulate in Damascus, which killed several senior commanders, demonstrated Tehran’s ability to strike across the Middle East, calling into question claims of Iranian incapacity.
Limits of Conventional U.S. Options
Military experts argue that, unlike in 2003, Washington no longer has the capacity to mobilize large-scale ground forces for a new full-scale war. Declining U.S. public support for protracted conflicts, combined with Iran’s missile and drone capabilities and its population of nearly 90 million, has made conventional military action extremely costly for the United States.
Nevertheless, recent remarks by Jake Sullivan, who did not rule out a direct strike inside Iran, renewed concerns. These comments came amid U.S. and NATO attacks on positions linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and allied forces in Iraq and Syria.
The High-Risk Scenario of Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons
In this context, some analyses point to the U.S. arsenal of low-yield nuclear weapons, including the W76-2 warhead. Critics argue that such weapons, with limited explosive power, are less designed for deterrence against major nuclear powers and more applicable to threat scenarios involving non-nuclear states.
Analysts warn that this approach increases the risk of uncontrolled escalation and the crossing of red lines, particularly as the United States seeks to contain emerging trends in the international system, including the expansion of BRICS Plus, a grouping described as aiming to reduce the dominance of (neo)colonial structures and strengthen a multipolar order.
Outlook Ahead
Observers stress that the continuation of accusation-driven and threatening policies not only undermines regional security but also raises the risk of pushing actors toward more dangerous deterrence options. From this perspective, preserving discreet diplomatic channels and avoiding escalation appear more essential than ever to prevent an uncontrollable crisis.
**************
End/ 345A
