Nuclear Proliferation is a War that We Must Win
How in less than three weeks, America put the world into the most significant nuclear predicament since the Cuban Missile Crisis
Originally Published: 7-3-2025
It is usually unwise to comment on a conflict so soon after the outset. Narratives run deep. Media operatives stir the pot. People are hopped up on national pride. And truth is hard to come by when secrecy is at a premium as is the case in such situations.
That said, I have received a number of requests asking me to weigh in on the Israel Iran and now American conflict, and although initially hesitant, there is an urgent need for an end-to-end chronicling of where we were, what occurred, and what it means going forward. Readers are seeking the truth and I cannot in good conscience remain silent when I know they will read storylines that are irrelevant to what is going on. So despite my hesitancy, I have chosen to proceed for the greater good and in a manner that stays true to logic, objectivity, and the facts as we know them.
In terms of the state actors involved in this ordeal, I am not going to place blame unless absolutely necessary. The truth is for every bad faith actor in Iran, there is a scientist with good intentions and legal rights. For every honorable motive the Trump administration may have, there are relentless neocons continually beating the drums of war for all the wrong reasons. And for every noble member of the Israeli armed forces who wants peace through strength with Iran, there is a Netanyahu official who is pushing war for reasons other than their immediate security. Ultimately, this conflict is not about who is right and who is wrong. This issue is about nuclear proliferation which is something that matters considerably more than anything the Iranians, Israelis, or Americans say or do. The long-term viability of our cities and civilization is being gambled upon and no nation or leader has a right to place such bets. It is therefore under this spotlight that I will chronicle what has occurred as well as why it is dangerous and requires handling with the coolest of heads.
NPT and IAEA
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a historic international agreement designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while concurrently promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This treaty was negotiated between 1965 and 1968 by the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament, a United Nations sponsored body, and has become the foundational element of global nuclear governance and security.
Central to this mission is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was established in 1957. The IAEA was the end result of President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech to the United Nations, which promoted peaceful uses of nuclear energy and preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.
The IAEA is mandated to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and ensure that nuclear technology is not used for military purposes. The IAEA oversees the implementation of safeguards and inspections to verify that nuclear material is not diverted to weapons use.
The Bargain
In order for the NPT to work, it required that the countries of the world agree that a few nations who had already established nuclear weapons would be allowed to keep them and all others would sign away their right to such military weaponry. In order to get these countries to buy into this idea, the NPT is based on a central bargain.
The countries without nuclear weapons agree never to acquire them, but are allowed to research and produce nuclear technology without interference. Furthermore, the countries with nuclear weapons agree to share peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament of their own stockpiles over time.
Specifically, Article Four of the NPT states:
“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination…”
and
“All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”
It is extremely important to understand that unrestricted access to peaceful nuclear technology is the carrot that makes this entire system work.
Unless a country physically places nuclear material inside a warhead and readies it for destruction, nuclear material is allowed to be enriched. This is the technicality that Iran thrives on. Tehran is well within its right to enrich uranium to any percentage they want to so long as they do not put it into a bomb. The fact that it could be used in a weapon is irrelevant. By signing away their rights to nuclear weapons under the NPT, Iran has the legal right to do this and we cannot legally stop it from happening. And since Iran knows the world hates that they do it, they purposely enrich uranium and then negotiate to get rid of it. That giant pile of cash Obama sent Iran on pallets was the direct result of doing this.
As of June 10th, 2025
It has been known for a year that Iran had again enriched uranium at weapons grade levels. Nothing is new in this regard. The international community try’s to claim that there is no other use for this enriched uranium and it is therefore illegal. However, this is a misinterpretation of the agreement. Iran is legally entitled to enrich uranium so long as it is not directly weaponized. And if they are banned from being able to do that, Iran can pull out of the NPT based on a material breach of the agreement and continue to make nuclear weapons. But aside from that, the claim that there is no use for highly enriched uranium other than weapons is also a lie.
China, Pakistan, and Syria all have small civilian reactors running on ninety percent highly enriched uranium. Even countries like Ghana and Nigeria once had HEU reactors but have since converted theirs to low enriched uranium. The bottom line is it may not be needed, but civilian uses of highly enriched uranium do exist and are currently used. This makes HEU absolutely something that Iran is entitled to develop under the NPT.
In addition to the knowledge that Iran has been enriching uranium, it is also known that Iran is skilled with missile technology. The Iranians have already battle tested hypersonic missiles which is something America has yet to achieve. It should therefore be assumed that Iran could rapidly weaponize enriched uranium should they want to.
Any time over the last year, Iran possessed highly enriched uranium and could weaponize and deploy a nuclear weapon in as little as a few weeks to a year. None of this was particularly worrisome to America until the past month.
Beyond America, many countries are also dead set against a nuclear armed Iran. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and Turkey are just as opposed to it as Israel. These countries will never be okay with Iran having nuclear weapons either and it must be again stressed that these concerns have been the same for a year and nothing impactful changed recently.
Interestingly and hardly understood in the West is the fact that Iran does not want nor are they allowed to have nuclear weapons. Not because of what any outside country wants, but because their Supreme Leader forbade the development of nuclear weapons over twenty years ago. This unequivocal non nuclear weapon policy infuriates Iranian hardliners, but they have no say in the matter. Failing to comply with the official policy of the Supreme Leader would amount to certain death for any Iranian who would go against it.
That said, the Iranians are advanced enough to enrich uranium and so they do so in a way that is technically legal and then they aggressively hold it over Israel’s head and use it for negotiating leverage. It is an incredibly unique and dangerous situation.
Again, this has been the state of affairs for the last year and both President Biden and President Trump did not seemingly care. Case in point, Israel approached the Biden administration to attack Iran after Trump won in November, but before he took office. Biden declined involvement and told them to get Trump’s approval instead. When Israel then presented their plan to Trump, reports were that Trump was furious at the mere suggestion and said that this would be handled through negotiations.
And Donald Trump was right to seek negotiations. This specific situation offers up a rare slam dunk scenario where all sides organically start seeking the same end result. Specifically, the United States, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Europe and Iran all do not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons. All that needed to be done was to find an acceptable path to that collectively agreed upon end result and the matter could be put to rest.
On the day Israel first attacked Iran (June 13th, 2025), the United States was five rounds into technical negotiations with Iran on ending their nuclear enrichment program permanently and three days away from the pivotal sixth meeting between Trump’s best negotiator, Steve Witkoff, and the Iranian Foreign Minister. Both men had met multiple times, liked each other, and publicly indicated how well the process was going. For those of you who are unaware, “technical” negotiations are far beyond normal negotiations. The final goal is already agreed upon and these are personal meetings to hammer out very fine details and to rebuild trust between nations who are enemies.
Witkoff was literally three days away from a sixth technical talk and potentially about to strike a final deal with Iran with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Russia. Although full details have not been made public, it is widely speculated that Iran’s highly enriched uranium and all things used to produce it were going to be given to the Russians as the Kremlin is a strong Israeli ally and is capable of safeguarding HEU in a manner that can be inspected. For giving up their highly enriched uranium material and facilities, Iran would receive peaceful nuclear energy infrastructure built by the United States, Russia or China. Most importantly, economic sanctions would be lifted off Iran.
A deal of this type is wonderful for those who value peace, but the mere thought of such an agreement was too much for the American neocons and Israel to bear. More significantly, and completely and likely intentionally overlooked, is the fact that such a deal would be a death sentence for Benjamin Netanyahu. This is because the Israeli Prime Minister is currently in the middle of a trial over three separate cases alleging bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. In fact, just this week an Israeli District Court agreed to postpone Netanyahu’s corruption trial and it coincidentally turns out that because of the conflict with Iran, the Prime Minister will not have to testify due to national security issues.
Although Netanyahu is a political behemoth and someone who should never be counted out, his government is on the verge of collapse. And if he is not Prime Minister, Netanyahu could realistically go to jail for life. The only way for Netanyahu to preserve himself is by staying in power and the only way to guarantee that is through a war with Iran. So when faced with a real possibility that Witkoff was going to strike a deal with Iran at the sixth technical negotiation, it also meant the opportunity to regime change Iran was about to fade away as was Netanyahu’s best way to literally remain free.
In a last ditch effort to preserve himself, Netanyahu told President Trump that Israel was going to attack Iran with a decapitation strike that would take out their leadership. The details have now been confirmed by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz. This was, in Israel’s opinion, the best way forward and they wanted the United States involved. Netanyahu informed the Americans that they knew where the Supreme Leader, Prime Minister, other Ministers, military heads and important civilians were located and that Israel planned on taking them all out. This would cause a vacuum that would lead to regime change and it would all be done and over in less than forty eight hours. It is my personal opinion that Trump communicated to Israel that America was on the verge of a negotiated deal and not to strike Iran, to which Israel told Trump to pound sand and attacked Iran anyway. This would explain why Secretary of State Marco Rubio put out the original press release saying the United States was not directly involved in the attack on Iran.
Up until that moment, President Trump was doing the right thing. The IAEA had Iranian nuclear facilities under constant surveillance and our best negotiator was very close to an end point that all sides would deem safe and responsible. But then President Trump, either egged on by neocons or by his own doing, let his massive ego get the best of him and he made a fateful mistake.
Despite America’s official message that we were not directly involved in Israel’s strike on Iran, Trump saw that initial reports confirmed a slew of Iranian military heads were assassinated successfully, prompting him to impulsively claim that the United States was a part of it and that was why it was such a big success. But when the dust settled, it turned out that the Israeli strike was not a success. If anything, it was a failure and Trump had recklessly inserted the United States directly into the conflict despite having had Secretary of State Rubio’s cover that it was not our attack.
So instead of no involvement in a reckless failure of an attack, Trump literally made America partially responsible for it.
This mistake put President Trump in an unwinnable situation. He either could walk away from the conflict, leave Israel vulnerable, and admit his mistake in hopes of signing a deal for true peace with Iran or he would have to double down on his involvement claim.
Trump, unable to admit his mistake and failing to understand the gravity of what direct involvement would mean, signed off on what history will see as a short-sighted, reckless plan. He ordered strikes on three Iranian civilian nuclear facilities with our best conventional weapons and thought this would bring peace and stability to the region.
To be fair, America’s strike on three Iranian civilian nuclear reactors had one positive outcome. The attack was enough to get Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Israel. Remember that Israel believed that their initial strike on June 13th would be enough to overthrow the entire Iranian regime within 48 hours. Their failure to do this placed them in a kinetic conflict with Iran that they had no means of winning. In fact, Israel did not have enough defense missiles to last even one month. So if any good came from America’s unprovoked strike, it was that it saved Israel from certain defeat.
But as much of a win as that may have been, the strike by America was orders of magnitude more of a loss for world security both in the short and long term.
In less than three weeks, the entire global security infrastructure which has been painstakingly designed, built upon and negotiated for approximately seventy years was turned upside down. Essential red lines that have rarely or never been crossed were all crossed with complete disregard to the implications of doing so. This includes murdering civilian scientists, bombing civilian nuclear reactors, launching attacks during technical negotiations, openly threatening to murder the leader of a sovereign nation, attempting to murder religious leaders, and more. These red lines have been intentionally established and crossing them is considered taboo as they are there to slow down escalation in global conflicts. Trump and Israel blew apart all of these serious safeguards and failed while doing so. America’s attack on Iranian civilian nuclear facilities violated our own policies dating back to the nineteen fifties, was contrary to the United Nations charter, and was a flagrant violation of international law.
And for what? Was Iran’s highly enriched uranium destroyed? No!!!
If anything, the countries of the world, including Israel and the United States, are now in a worse situation.
Three weeks ago, the IAEA had control and access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. They could check their centrifuges and machinery and inspect their inventory of highly enriched uranium. What we now have is a situation where Iran has a stockpile of highly enriched uranium that is hidden. The IAEA has no access to it and Iran has been able to sever ties with the IAEA due to their lack of support during this conflict. This is because along with inspections, the IAEA is also supposed to protect Iran’s rights to have these nuclear facilities, which did not occur. To make matters worse, the IAEA, Israel and America have all admitted they have no idea where Iran's enriched uranium is. So in less than three weeks, the world went from a situation where the Iranian nuclear program was in the light to a situation where it is completely in the dark.
Why It Matters
Ensuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon is universally seen as paramount to global security, but what is not so readily understood is that it has nothing to do with what Iran could do with such a weapon. The issue is about nuclear proliferation.
The world has spent decades ensuring that nuclear weapons do not spread to additional countries and for the most part, our collective efforts using the NPT with enforcement through the IAEA has worked. But if Iran in particular were to get a nuclear weapon, it would set off a chain reaction that would put the entire world in immense danger. Specifically, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt have all indicated that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear, they will develop a nuclear arsenal themselves. Moreover, Pakistan, who shares a border with Iran, has indicated they will increase their nuclear arsenal if Iran is alliwed to have a nuke. India has indicated that if Pakistan increases their nuclear weapons, they will do the same. And China has indicated that if India were to do that, they would increase their nuclear arsenals which would cause the United States to increase their inventories which would cause Russia to increase their nuclear weaponry. Unlike the situation with North Korea, Iran getting a nuclear weapon sets off an unstoppable nuclear arms race the likes of which we have never seen.
And this is not even the biggest worry nations face.
Nuclear weapons are not cutting edge. They have been around for eighty years and most nations have the technology and scientific skill to develop them. In 2004, IAEA Director General and future Egyptian Vice President Mohamed ElBaradei estimated that forty countries had the knowledge to develop nuclear weapons. Consider for a moment the ramifications of a country like Egypt with nuclear weapons. Unlike Saudi Arabia or Turkey, Egypt is anything but stable. If they were to get nuclear weapons, they would inevitably fall into the hands of a hostile future leader who would be incentivized to sell this technology on the black market. And let us say just three nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands as the result of a nuclear arms race spurred by Iran. The damage that could be done to a city is quite frankly unthinkable.
If a modern nuclear weapon were to be detonated on a city, the damage experts most worry about is not due to the initial blast. Buildings and infrastructure would be obliterated and there would be a sizable loss of life, but those are relatively short lived problems. The real danger arises from the radioactive fallout that would render a major city potentially uninhabitable for decades!
I ask you to take extra time to consider what you are about to read carefully.
If a rogue actor were able to get just three nuclear bombs, it is enough to render three cities uninhabitable for decades.
What would be the ramifications if Manhattan, Washington DC and Los Angeles were uninhabitable for decades?
Or London, Paris and Berlin?
Or Moscow and Saint Petersburg?
Or Rome, Milan and Athens?
Or Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?
If any of these cities suffered this fate, the economic and social devastation would be unprecedented. The only thing currently safeguarding the world from this devastation is the NPT, the IAEA, and most importantly the manner in which we handle the Iran situation.
Full Circle
Bringing this back to square one, the recent Iranian nuclear issue has very little to do with the short-term security of Israel and the United States and everything to do with preventing long term nuclear proliferation. This is not my opinion. It has been United States government policy along with our international counterparts for decades. Our intelligence agencies and the IAEA have repeatedly said that Iran, though capable of making a nuclear weapon, does not seek to do so. They are openly using their ability to enrich uranium as a means of negotiation which they are entitled to do under the NPT. If we are truly trying to protect Israel and the United States, we cannot let issues of this magnitude be hijacked by a pro war crowd with sophisticated rhetoric at the expense of genuine security for ourselves and the world.
Americans, both elected officials and the general populace, need to step up and demonstrate the sensibility previous generations exhibited. We must respect the NPT and the fact it exists because of United States and others’ efforts as it is the sole measure that stops the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must remain cognizant that our strategy hinges on buy in from non nuclear states. This revolves around the fundamental bargain embodied in the treaty that grants all non nuclear states unrestricted rights to develop nuclear technology without restraint so long as it is not directly weaponized. And we must hold the IAEA accountable as they are the agency tasked with both inspecting for nuclear weapons and concurrently protecting civilian nuclear reactors and technology from outside interference such as Israel and the United States have done over the past three weeks.
Like it or not, Iran was operating three civilian nuclear reactors within their rights bestowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty agreement. Just because they enrich uranium to a level that could be weaponized means nothing unless it is weaponized. The fact is Iran was inspected, regulated, and compliant as of June 10th, 2025.
The unprovoked American attack on Iran’s three civilian nuclear facilities was a violation of international law, a violation of the United Nations charter, and a breach of the fundamental contract that exists at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. America’s actions bypassed the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The attack has given Iran a legal opening to develop nuclear weapons as they can now accurately claim that the part of the NPT that benefits them has been breached.
Operation Opera
Before this article concludes, it may be helpful to revisit the only similar occurrence that has taken place in the past.
On June 7th, 1981, Israel launched a surprise air attack on a civilian nuclear reactor being constructed outside of Baghdad, Iraq. Like America’s recent attack on Iran, the Israeli attack on Iraq was also unprovoked and focused on a civilian nuclear technology that was actively monitored by the IAEA. But unlike the recent attack on Iran, the world immediately condemned the 1981 Israeli strike as a blatant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and of international law.
For example, the United Nations Security Council issued a unanimous response condemning Israel for the unprovoked attack on Iraq. Security Council Resolution 487 stated that the attack was a “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”. The resolution also recognized Iraq’s right to “establish programmes of technological and nuclear development” and that they were “entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered.” The United States not only voted for the resolution but also suspended the delivery of four F-16 aircrafts to Israel.
Beyond the Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly also issued a resolution condemning Israel for the “premeditated and unprecedented act of aggression.” It also demanded Israel refrain from future attacks and pay adequate compensation for any damage and loss of life.
On top of all of these strong criticisms and an additional condemnation from the IAEA, the following represents a fraction of the international outrage directed towards Israel for what was widely considered a reckless attack:
“I swear I believe Armageddon is near,” – President Ronald Reagan
“Armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified. It represents a grave breach of international law,” – Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
“Israel’s sneak attack … was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression,” – New York Times.
Israel’s attack amounted to “state-sponsored terrorism”. – The Los Angeles Times
“The world was outraged by Israel’s raid on June 7th, 1981.” – The Guardian
At the time of the attack in 1981, America was just as strong an ally of Israel and cared as much about their security as we do today. If anything, our relationship may have been even stronger back then. Given that the 1981 attack was similar to the recent attack against Iran, and a better case can be made that Iraq posed a greater threat to Israel in 1981 than Iran does to them in 2025, why is the current response, or lack thereof, from the international community so different this time around?
The truth is leaders back then were far more responsible and had much more agency than the officials in charge today. Past leaders fully understood the risks and therefore maintained a healthy fear of nuclear proliferation. No leader of merit would dare let ego, court cases, incessant neocons, or false rhetoric sway them towards a potential global catastrophe. Leaders like Reagan and Thatcher were by no means perfect. But they had a backbone and a sophisticated understanding of the issues of importance. They would never run cover, excuse, or help an ally if it meant putting the world at any risk. And both their allies and enemies respected them for this stance. Leaders in that era understood that true strength was demonstrated by successful diplomacy. They did not feel entitled or the need to risk the world for short-term gains. And they were fundamentally against cheap shots, bully tactics or anything else that could disrupt the diplomatic process.
Because of this attitude and higher order leadership style, nuclear proliferation was stifled on their watch and the Collective West came out of the Cold War unscathed. These were real wins worthy of genuine praise.
Sadly, the lessons and examples from prior leaders have been largely disregarded by current officials with a few notable exceptions. Rhetoric is now supercharged. Escalation is not understood or feared. Bullying is the norm. And diplomacy and detente have been all but forgotten.
As a direct result, we are now currently waist deep in the most dangerous nuclear predicament since the Cuban Missile Crisis and this was not the case just three short weeks ago.
Israel and America’s 12 day war with Iran was more than a misstep. Iran’s enrichment capability was not eliminated nor are they deterred. Their highly enriched uranium has not been destroyed. It’s gone missing. Nothing good came from this debacle. It was not a win, smart or strategic for the United States or Israel. It did not make anyone safer. It was not a show of strength and it is certainly nothing anyone should be congratulated for.
Last but not least, I want to be clear that I take pride in being one of the few people who disseminate an accurate portrayal of controversial world events. I take this responsibility seriously. As far as the conflict with Iran is concerned, it is not a wait and see scenario. This is not about trusting President Trump. Nothing can be revealed in the future that changes the consequences of what has happened.
Now is the time to make every effort to think clearly and base our conclusions on facts. I do not know exactly how this will unfold. But if America is fortunate enough to get the Iranians back to the negotiating table, you can be absolutely certain Iran will now be allowed to continue enriching uranium in some form. Furthermore, the pallets of cash that Obama sent to Tehran will seem like chump change compared to what the US will be forced to cough up in the form of sweetheart deals for Iran. And most alarmingly, this is the world’s best case scenario.
As always, I thank you for your continued support and readership.
Jon Kurpis
CONTACT:
Email | jonkurpis@protonmail.com
Twitter/X | [at] kurpis
Disclaimer:
The Jon Kurpis Substack is a personal platform and reflects only my individual thoughts, opinions, and perspectives. Nothing published here should be interpreted as official communication or correspondence in my capacity as an elected official. The views expressed do not represent the positions of any municipality, governing body, or any other elected official or government entity.