Iran’s nuclear program has evolved over decades from a collaborative effort with the West to a central point of global tension. What began in the 1950s as a symbol of progress and cooperation has become a flashpoint for military conflict, deep mistrust, and intensifying fears of proliferation. Understanding this long and turbulent trajectory is vital to assessing the crisis that now threatens regional and global stability.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions began in the 1950s under the Shah, with significant support and cooperation from the United States, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. This era saw the establishment of Iran’s first nuclear research facility in Tehran and the acquisition of a research reactor. The Shah envisioned a vast nuclear energy program, aiming for 23,000 MWe of nuclear capacity by the end of the century to free up oil and gas for export. Contracts were signed with Western companies, including Siemens KWU of Germany and Framatome of France, for the construction of multiple nuclear power plants. This period was characterized by international cooperation and transparency, with Iran as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, committing to not pursuing nuclear weapons.

However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution dramatically altered this trajectory. The new revolutionary government initially halted many of the Shah’s ambitious projects, including the nuclear program, viewing them as symbols of Western influence. Yet, as the Iran-Iraq War raged in the 1980s and the regime faced external threats, the strategic importance of nuclear capabilities resurfaced. The program then continued in greater secrecy, leading to growing international suspicions about its true nature and whether it aimed for more than just peaceful energy production.

Sanctions and Diplomacy

These Suspicions deepened in the early 2000s when revelations emerged about Iran’s undeclared nuclear activities. In response, the United Nations, the United States, and the European Union imposed a series of increasingly stringent sanctions, targeting Iran’s oil exports, financial institutions, and access to international banking. These measures aimed to pressure Tehran into halting its enrichment program and accepting stricter oversight.

After years of tense negotiations and periodic standoffs, the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 nations , China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The agreement set significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program to ensure its exclusively peaceful nature. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to reduce its stockpile of low‑enriched uranium by 97%, down to 300 kg, and limit enrichment to 3.67% U‑235, far below weapons‑grade levels.

It also committed to cutting its operational centrifuges from nearly 20,000 to roughly 6,000 first‑generation IR‑1 machines, storing more advanced centrifuges for future use. The heavy‑water reactor at Arak was redesigned to prevent plutonium production, and the Fordow facility was converted into a research site. Critically, the JCPOA established a rigorous inspection regime, granting IAEA inspectors unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear facilities and supply chain. In exchange for these measures, the international community lifted nuclear‑related sanctions, seeking to reintegrate Iran into the global economy. The agreement aimed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, build trust, and reduce tensions across the Middle East.

US Withdrawal from JCPOA and Escalation:

Despite its stated objectives and the IAEA’s repeated confirmations of Iran’s compliance, the JCPOA faced significant political opposition, particularly in the United States. In May 2018, the Trump administration announced its unilateral withdrawal from the agreement, deeming it flawed and insufficient. This move initiated a maximum pressure campaign, reimposing and escalating sanctions with the stated aim of forcing Iran to negotiate a better deal that would address its ballistic missile program and regional behavior.

Iran’s response was a gradual but calculated reduction of its own JCPOA commitments. Tehran argued that if the other signatories could not uphold their end of the deal (sanctions relief), Iran was no longer bound by its nuclear restrictions. This led to increased uranium enrichment levels beyond the 3.67% limit, the installation of advanced centrifuges, and a growing stockpile of enriched uranium, including levels up to 60% U-235, a short technical step away from weapons-grade material. This escalation set the stage for the dramatic events of June 2025.

The June 2025 Crisis

The fragile peace of the Middle East was shattered when Israel launched airstrikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities and top Iranian military leadership on June 13th,  a dangerous turning point in the long-running standoff. These strikes killed many members of Iran’s military and civilian leadership including head of IRGC Hossein Salami, a close advisor of Supreme Leader Ali Shamkhani and the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces Mohammad Bagheri.

The attack came after a long period of rising tensions in the region. Israel targeted several Iranian nuclear sites in these raids, but lacked the technical and operational capacity to destroy all of Iran’s hardened underground facilities. This limitation ultimately pulled the United States into direct action. In response to these attacks by Israel, Iran launched successive barrages of rockets and ballistic missiles towards Israel, causing considerable damage to civilian, military and economic infrastructure.

The Attack by the US

After days of indecisive ballistic missile and air bombing duels between Iran and Israel, the USA decided to enter the conflict directly on June 22nd, targeting various nuclear installations in Iran. The precision campaign targeted Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, causing extremely severe damage according to US claims. Satellite imagery revealed massive craters and the destruction of surface installations at Natanz, including its electric substation and pilot enrichment plant. The Fordow site, buried deep within a mountain, was hit with bunker buster Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), with initial imagery showing plumes of smoke and cratering across the site.

The IAEA later stated that Fordow suffered “very significant” damage, with Natanz and Isfahan also sustaining serious harm, including the destruction of uranium conversion buildings and tunnel entrances. Notably, the IAEA confirmed that despite the extensive strikes, no abnormal radiation levels were detected. Iran claimed no casualties, citing early warning and pre-emptive evacuations , an assertion that, if true, suggests significant preparedness or intelligence leaks ahead of the strikes.

Iran’s Response:

Iran’s official statements were predictably condemnatory, with leaders vowing harsh revenge for the attacks. However, their military retaliation was notably limited and seemingly calibrated to avoid further escalation. Iran launched a limited missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a major US military installation in the region. Qatari air defense systems reportedly intercepted most of the missiles, and no US casualties or significant damage were reported. This symbolic strike, while demonstrating Iran’s capability to target US assets, also conveyed a degree of strategic patience, avoiding a direct confrontation that could spiral into a full-scale war.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi quickly indicated a willingness to cease operations if Israeli aggression stopped. Ceasefire was agreed by all parties and announced by president Trump on 24th June.

Why the Nuclear Row is Far From Over

Despite the dramatic US bombing and the declared, albeit fragile, ceasefire between Iran and Israel/USA the nuclear row with Iran is far from over. The recent military action, rather than resolving the core issues, has likely complicated them further.

Iran’s Technical Capabilities

Even with the reported severe damage to key nuclear facilities like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, Iran retains significant residual knowledge and infrastructure. Nuclear know-how, once acquired, cannot be bombed away. Iranian scientists, engineers, and technicians have decades of experience in the nuclear field. While some facilities may require extensive rebuilding, the fundamental understanding of uranium enrichment, centrifuge technology, and nuclear physics remains intact. Experts warn that Iran possesses the ability to rebuild and restart its program relatively quickly, perhaps within months, especially if it decides to pursue a more overt and unhindered path. Furthermore, the IAEA has expressed concern about Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile (estimated at 408.6 kg of 60% enriched uranium as of May 2025), much of which is believed to have been dispersed to covert, unknown locations. This material, if further refined, could theoretically be sufficient for multiple nuclear bombs.

Motivational Factors

The US bombing, far from deterring Iran, may have solidified its motivation to pursue a nuclear deterrent. From Tehran’s perspective, the strike could be viewed as a confirmation of an existential threat from the US and Israel. The narrative within Iran is likely to shift, emphasizing that compliance with international oversight (like the JCPOA) made them vulnerable, while a nuclear weapon is the ultimate guarantee of national pride, sovereignty, and regime survival. This “deterrence imperative” could become the overriding national security objective, overshadowing any previous hesitations or diplomatic considerations.

Regional Dynamics

The bombing has further inflamed an already volatile region. Proxy conflicts, in which Iran and its adversaries (primarily Saudi Arabia and Israel, often backed by the US) support opposing factions, are likely to continue and intensify across Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. The US strike, by directly attacking Iran, risks an escalation cycle that could draw in more regional actors and further destabilize an already fragile balance of power. Existing regional alliances and rivalries will intensify, with each side seeking to strengthen its position and counter perceived threats.

Iran’s Nuclear Trajectory: From Restraint to “Necessity”

The US bombing marks a critical shift for Iran’s nuclear trajectory. The era of “nuclear restraint,” however tenuous, may now be replaced by a strategic imperative of “necessity.”

For years, despite advances, Iran adhered to a stated policy of not pursuing nuclear weapons, citing religious edicts. The JCPOA offered a brief period of verifiable restraint. Yet the US withdrawal from the agreement, its “maximum pressure” campaign, and the recent airstrikes have reshaped Tehran’s calculus. The lesson that “transparency invites bombs” is pivotal. Iran’s leaders are likely to conclude that compliance with international oversight and IAEA inspections made it more vulnerable, yielding attack rather than de‑escalation.

In this context, the immediate and most probable response will be Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT and expulsion of IAEA inspectors. Under attack despite its NPT commitments and inspection regime, Iran may have no further incentive to accept constraints. Its nuclear program could move into total opacity, making intelligence gathering far more challenging and future policy decisions exceedingly difficult. Without oversight, Iran could quickly ramp up enrichment to weapons‑grade levels, install advanced centrifuges, and pursue weaponization studies unhindered. A breakout timeline once measured in months could shrink sharply, reshaping Middle Eastern security and setting the stage for a new, more dangerous nuclear era.

Scenario 1: Accelerated Weaponization by Necessity

One plausible scenario is an overt and accelerated pursuit of nuclear weapons. The direct military attack would provide a powerful domestic and international justification for seeking an ultimate deterrent. The narrative would be: We were attacked precisely because we did not possess nuclear weapons. Our security demands it.

In this scenario, Iran might publicly declare its intent to develop nuclear weapons, a significant ideological and strategic shift. This would be followed by full-scale, overt efforts to enrich uranium to weapons-grade purity, potentially at multiple, newly disclosed or rebuilt sites, and rapid integration of warhead designs. While this path would intensify international sanctions to an unprecedented degree, the leverage of sanctions would diminish significantly as Iran would have abandoned any pretense of compliance. This scenario also carries the highest risk of further, perhaps more devastating, military strikes aimed at preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.

Scenario 2: Deepened Covert Program

Alternatively, learning from the vulnerability exposed by the recent strike, Iran might prioritize a deepened and more robust covert program. This would involve focusing on dispersion and hardening of facilities, making future strikes far more difficult and less effective.

Actions could include the relocation of sensitive research and enrichment activities to deeply buried, highly mobile, or extensively duplicated sites that are difficult for intelligence agencies to detect and impossible to target with conventional munitions. This would also involve increased reliance on clandestine networks for the acquisition of materials, components, and technology, bypassing international controls, and conducting warhead design and assembly work in highly secretive, undeclared locations.

The implications of such a scenario are dire. A covert program is far less transparent and verifiable, making intelligence gathering and future policy decisions incredibly challenging. The “unknown” becomes the greatest threat, creating an environment of perpetual uncertainty and heightened tension in the region and globally. It shifts the nuclear problem from one of proliferation control to one of existential threat, as the international community would be operating with severely degraded knowledge of Iran’s true nuclear capabilities.

The “Threshold” is Breached:

Regardless of whether Iran chooses an overt or covert path, the bombing almost certainly means that Iran will try to transit from being a “threshold state” to an active proliferator. This shift will have profound psychological and strategic impacts.

For regional actors, it would fundamentally alter the security landscape, potentially prompting an unprecedented nuclear arms race. For global non-proliferation efforts, it would represent a catastrophic blow to the NPT, further eroding its credibility and potentially inspiring other states to pursue nuclear weapons, believing that international treaties offer no protection against perceived threats. The post-NPT world, where non-proliferation is increasingly challenged by the logic of deterrence, is no longer theoretical but emergent.

Regional Escalation and Geopolitical Realignments

The US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities and the ensuing fragile ceasefire have not only reshaped Iran’s nuclear trajectory but also ignited a dangerous fuse in the Middle East, promising widespread regional escalation and significant geopolitical realignments. While Iran’s initial military response was a relatively restrained missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base, causing no US casualties, this does not signal the end of its retaliatory capabilities. Iran still possesses a diverse array of direct and indirect means to respond, including sophisticated cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure in the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states, aiming to inflict economic and social damage. Its extensive ballistic and cruise missile arsenal remains a serious threat, with future strikes potentially more widespread or aimed at vital economic infrastructure like oil installations.

The Strait of Hormuz, a crucial global oil choke point, also remains vulnerable to disruption by Iran or its proxies, with significant economic repercussions. Critically, the strike is likely to intensify proxy warfare, with Iran’s network of allied non‑state actors potentially unleashing greater ferocity, creating a cycle of action and counter‑action that will be exceedingly difficult to de‑escalate. Perhaps the most alarming consequence is its potential to trigger a regional arms race, both conventional and nuclear. Saudi Arabia may now feel compelled to pursue its own nuclear program, concluding that only a matching deterrent can guarantee its security. Meanwhile, other powers such as Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE could reconsider their stance, exploring indigenous development or external partnerships. At the same time, a parallel buildup of conventional arms is already underway across the Middle East. This conflict has severely damaged, if not severed, any remaining channels for meaningful dialogue between the US/West and Iran, making it exceedingly challenging to build trust or find off‑ramps in future crises.

Conclusion

Today, Iran’s nuclear path stands at a critical crossroads. The recent strikes and rising tensions have reshaped the Middle East, making the risk of a wider conflict or a nuclear breakout more serious than ever. Without a fresh effort to restore dialogue, build trust, and agree on limits, the road ahead could lead to deeper mistrust, growing tensions between regional rivals, and a weaker global effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This crisis shows how quickly a fragile balance can collapse, leaving a trail of uncertainty that threatens not only the Middle East, but international peace and stability for years to come.