By Press TV Website Staff
The possibility of a nuclear attack against Iran has become one of the most frequently raised questions in discussions about a potential future confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the US-Israeli war machine.
The question is understandable: could the United States or the Israeli regime resort to nuclear weapons against Iran, and if such an attack takes place, what would its consequences be?
The likelihood of such an attack remains extremely low. More importantly, the widespread anxiety surrounding this possibility is itself part of a broader psychological and cognitive operation intended to weaken Iranian society's resilience before any future escalation.
The nuclear threat is being amplified in the media circles and across Persian-language social networks, not necessarily because its implementation is a realistic military option, but because fear can achieve strategic objectives that conventional military operations cannot.
This distinction is important. Whether a war begins or not, adversaries will seek to influence the psychological condition of Iranian society, which has stood firm for over 250 nights since the 40-day war was launched against the country. As demonstrated in the two imposed wars, psychological pressure, the circulation of alarming narratives and the deliberate amplification of uncertainty are integral elements of modern warfare.
The objective is to make people anxious, restless and increasingly preoccupied with their personal safety and the security of their families. Once fear becomes widespread, society's capacity to withstand pressure can decline dramatically.
A population consumed by questions about the possibility of a nuclear explosion, the geographical extent of radioactive contamination and the safety of its children is more vulnerable to psychological destabilisation.
The adversary hopes that this anxiety will translate into public pressure against continued resistance and ultimately weaken the country's ability to withstand a confrontation.
In this context, the growing discussions about the likelihood of a nuclear attack, including purported educational videos explaining what people should do in the event of a nuclear strike, deserve particular scrutiny.
Whatever the intentions of those producing such material, unnecessarily publicizing these scenarios risks reinforcing precisely the fear that the adversary seeks to cultivate. It can turn a remote and highly improbable possibility into an immediate public concern. Such actions, even when motivated by good intentions, can inadvertently contribute to the enemy's psychological operations.
There are several strategic, geopolitical and environmental reasons why the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is an extraordinarily unlikely scenario.
A nuclear attack would not bring the war to an end
The first and perhaps most fundamental reason is that a nuclear attack against Iran, if at all it takes place, would not constitute a decisive military solution to the quagmire that the US-Israeli war machine finds itself in. It would not necessarily end the imposed war, achieve the strategic objectives of the United States or Israel, or eliminate Iran's capacity to continue resisting.
The historical example most frequently invoked in discussions of nuclear warfare is the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The United States used nuclear weapons against Japan in the final stages of the Second World War, and those attacks became a decisive factor in the conclusion of the war
However, the strategic circumstances of Japan in 1945 and Iran today are fundamentally different. That’s a key factor that needs to be taken into account.
Japan is an island country with a relatively limited geographical area. Its concentrated population centres, infrastructure and industrial facilities made it particularly vulnerable to the devastating effects of nuclear attacks. The destruction inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki contributed to Japan's surrender and the termination of the war.
Iran, by contrast, is a vast country with a geographically extensive territory, diverse landscapes and substantial mountainous regions. Its strategic infrastructure, population centres and military capabilities are distributed across a much larger geographical space.
Consequently, the use of even a nuclear weapon would not automatically paralyse the country or eliminate its ability to continue fighting and resisting the external aggressors.
A nuclear attack could undoubtedly inflict catastrophic human, environmental and infrastructural damage. There should be no attempt to minimise the scale of such destruction.
The central point is that Iran's capacity to resist would not necessarily disappear following a nuclear strike, if at all the aggressors go that foolhardy path. The war could continue, potentially under far more dangerous and unpredictable circumstances.
Indeed, the argument goes further: a nuclear attack could transform the nature of the war entirely. Rather than producing Iranian capitulation, it could create an overwhelming determination to acquire a nuclear deterrent and retaliate against those responsible.
In this scenario, the attack intended to end the war imposed on a country of 90 million people could instead produce a far more consequential and irreversible confrontation.
A nuclear attack will lead to Israel's destruction and trigger global nuclear proliferation
The second point concerns the consequences of crossing the nuclear threshold. If the United States or the Israeli regime were to use a nuclear weapon against Iran, the consequences would extend far beyond the immediate battlefield. Such an action could fundamentally alter Iran's strategic calculations and create an entirely different security environment.
Under those circumstances, Iran would have every incentive to develop its own nuclear weapon and establish a nuclear deterrent, something it has withheld until now owing to the famous fatwa (edict) issued by the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution.
The country would no longer view the existing limitations and calculations governing its nuclear policy in the same way. The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would fundamentally change the strategic circumstances in which those decisions are made.
Iran would then seek the capability to retaliate against the United States and its Zionist proxy. Given the comparatively small geographical size of the Zionist entity, even a single successful nuclear strike could have existential consequences for the regime.
This is precisely why a nuclear attack against Iran would represent an extraordinary strategic gamble for Israel. Rather than eliminating the so-called “Iranian threat,” it could create the conditions for an existential threat against Israel itself.
There is also a much wider international dimension. The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would establish a dangerous precedent for the international system. It could weaken the existing restraints on nuclear proliferation and encourage other countries to reconsider their security strategies.
For example, Russia could interpret such an action as a precedent relevant to its war with Ukraine. China could reassess its calculations concerning Taiwan. Other regional powers and even smaller actors could conclude that possessing nuclear weapons is essential to their survival.
The consequences would not necessarily remain confined to established nuclear powers. Once the international norm against the use of nuclear weapons had been fundamentally undermined, the possibility of proliferation among additional state and non-state actors could become increasingly difficult to contain.
The United States would therefore risk initiating a chain reaction that could eventually threaten its own national security.
A world in which nuclear weapons are increasingly viewed as legitimate instruments of political coercion would be a world in which American territory itself could become more vulnerable. States and actors seeking retaliation against Washington might conclude that nuclear capabilities offer the most effective means of confronting American power.
The United States would effectively be encouraging the emergence of a more dangerous international environment in which its own security could no longer be taken for granted.
These are not insignificant considerations. American policymakers, military planners and intelligence institutions have spent decades studying nuclear escalation, proliferation and the consequences of crossing the nuclear threshold. They understand that using a nuclear weapon against Iran would not be an isolated military decision. It could initiate a chain of developments with consequences extending far beyond the original conflict.
The environmental consequences would threaten the entire region
The third major consideration is the geographical and environmental impact of a nuclear attack.
Iran occupies a strategically important position in the Persian Gulf region, surrounded by countries with which the United States maintains varying degrees of political, military and economic relations. A nuclear explosion on Iranian territory would not necessarily confine its consequences within Iran's borders.
Radioactive contamination can travel across national boundaries, depending on the location of the explosion, atmospheric conditions, wind patterns and other environmental factors.
The consequences could therefore affect neighbouring countries, including Iraq, Turkey and several Arab states in the Persian Gulf and wider West Asian region.
The experience of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster illustrates how radioactive contamination can spread over considerable distances. Following the 1986 accident, radioactive materials were detected in parts of Europe, including Germany, within a relatively short period.
Although Chornobyl was a nuclear reactor accident rather than a nuclear weapon detonation, it demonstrates an important point: radioactive contamination does not respect political borders.
A nuclear attack against Iran could consequently create an environmental crisis extending across a substantial portion of the region. This would have serious implications for the United States and its regional allies. American military installations, strategic partnerships, economic interests and allied populations could all be exposed to the consequences of such an attack.
The United States would therefore risk inflicting enormous damage not only on Iran but also on countries whose cooperation and support are important to American regional strategy.
Furthermore, the political consequences could be even more significant than the immediate environmental damage. Hundreds of millions of people across the region could come to view the US as responsible for an unprecedented humanitarian and environmental catastrophe. This could intensify hostility and create powerful incentives for retaliation.
The argument is that Washington would be creating an entire regional environment in which hostility towards its interests becomes far more intense and potentially far more dangerous.
There would inevitably be individuals, organisations and governments seeking ways to inflict serious damage on the US regional infrastructure in response.
For this reason, the environmental consequences alone constitute a powerful strategic deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons in Iran.
Using nuclear weapons would amount to admission of conventional military defeat
Another important consideration concerns the political and military symbolism of a nuclear attack. If the United States were to use nuclear weapons against Iran, what would that decision communicate to the rest of the world?
It would suggest that American military forces had failed to achieve their objectives through conventional means. It would indicate that the United States had been unable to defeat Iran using its existing military capabilities and had consequently resorted to an extraordinary and unprecedented level of destructive force.
In other words, such a decision could be interpreted as an admission that conventional military options had failed against the new regional superpower. This would have profound consequences for America's international standing, which has already taken a battering.
The United States has traditionally presented itself as the world's leading military power, possessing the technological, logistical and operational capabilities necessary to achieve its objectives through conventional warfare.
Its global influence depends not only on the actual strength of its armed forces but also on the perception that those forces can deliver decisive outcomes. A nuclear attack against Iran will not only undermine that perception, but shatter it.
Rather than demonstrating American superiority, it could persuade other countries that Washington had reached the limits of its conventional military power and was prepared to resort to indiscriminate destruction when unable to secure victory through ordinary means.
Such a development would encourage other countries to reconsider their relationships with Washington and accelerate efforts to protect themselves against American military pressure.
The strategic damage would therefore extend well beyond Iran. It could undermine the credibility of American power, weaken its alliances and encourage the emergence of a more hostile international environment.
This is another reason why the nuclear option is so strategically unattractive.
The nuclear threat should be understood within the broader context of psychological warfare
Taken together, these considerations lead to an important conclusion: the possibility of a nuclear attack against Iran should not be treated as an imminent or realistic expectation.
The strategic costs would be extraordinarily high, while the military benefits would be highly uncertain or non-existent for aggressors.
A nuclear attack would not end the war that the US imposed on Iran. It could create the conditions for an Iranian nuclear response, threaten the Israeli regime’s existence, accelerate global nuclear proliferation, and expose America's regional allies to radioactive contamination.
In light of these consequences, it is difficult to see how such an action could serve as a rational instrument of American or Israeli military strategy.
This does not mean that the United States and Israel will refrain from military confrontation altogether. On the contrary, the possibility of another confrontation involving conventional weapons remains a much more serious consideration. If a new war occurs, it is far more likely to be conducted through conventional military capabilities.
Iran must therefore remain prepared for such a confrontation and understand the requirements of responding to it. The existence of a conventional military threat, however, should not be confused with the exaggerated narrative of an impending nuclear attack.
It is equally important to recognise the psychological dimension of the current discussion. The adversary understands that weakening a society does not always require defeating its armed forces. Sometimes, creating uncertainty, fear and anxiety can be equally consequential.
When people begin to believe that an entire country could be annihilated at any moment, their attention shifts away from collective resilience and towards individual survival. Anxiety spreads, rumours gain credibility and even highly improbable scenarios begin to dominate public discussion.
This is precisely why responsible communication matters. There is no compelling reason to continuously circulate alarming material about hypothetical nuclear attacks, particularly when doing so may intensify public anxiety without providing meaningful strategic or practical value.
The distinction between a theoretical possibility and a strategically plausible course of action is essential.
Do not allow fear to become a weapon against society
So, the likelihood of a nuclear attack against Iran is extremely low because such an attack would be strategically self-defeating for the United States and the Israeli regime.
The United States understands these consequences. Its military and intelligence institutions are well aware of the dangers associated with nuclear escalation and the potentially uncontrollable chain of events that could follow the first use of a nuclear weapon against Iran.
Consequently, the widespread circulation of nuclear attack scenarios should be viewed with considerable caution. The fear surrounding this issue may itself serve a strategic purpose: weakening public confidence, undermining social resilience and creating pressure against resistance before a potential confrontation even begins.
The most important thing is not to allow this fear to become widespread and uncontrollable.
Iran may face serious challenges, and the possibility of conventional military confrontation should not be dismissed. But that is very different from accepting every frightening scenario circulated in the media as a realistic prospect.
People should remain informed, attentive and prepared, but they should not allow their psychological stability to be undermined by speculative threats that have little strategic basis.
Ultimately, resilience is itself an important component of national security. A society that understands the adversary's objectives, distinguishes between genuine threats and psychological operations, and refuses to surrender its composure in the face of intimidation is much better positioned to withstand pressure.
This makes it easy to access the Press TV website