Israel is estimated to possess around 90 nuclear warheads, while never having signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This unique situation raises questions about the consistency of the global nuclear order and the criteria for diplomatic tolerance.
In a Middle East where attention is focused on the Iranian nuclear program, Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity. The Hebrew State neither confirms nor denies the possession of nuclear weapons, simply stating that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. This strategy allows it to benefit from a deterrent effect without suffering major diplomatic consequences.
This ambiguity suits the major powers, which prioritize regional stability over legal rigor. Israel is seen as a strategic ally whose nuclear deterrence would stabilize the region in the face of hostile neighbors. Conversely, the programs of countries like Iran are seen as destabilizing. This approach creates a double standard where the political evaluation of regimes takes precedence over the uniform application of international law.
In the long term, this exception weakens the NPT. Iran regularly justifies its nuclear ambitions by the fact that Israel possesses nuclear weapons with impunity, thus fueling the regional arms race. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt are carefully watching this situation and may be tempted to follow the same path. Will the global nuclear order survive its own contradictions, as Iran approaches the nuclear threshold?
