Global Nuclear Proliferation

On Feb. 4, 2026, the New START Treaty ended without any incentive for renewal. On February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel initiated strikes on Iran, citing a lack of progress in the nuclear talks. This year has witnessed prominent incidents related to nuclear security, where states become more incentivised to develop their own nuclear capabilities and other nuclear states resist such direction. Additionally, global developments prove that traditional nuclear frameworks appear to be losing significance, with some states going further by resorting to violence to ensure their nuclear hegemony.   This development raises questions about the possibility of global shifts from traditional arms control treaties to a new nuclear arms control regime. A new phase of informal signalling and strategic forecasting could emerge, raising concerns about whether this form is sufficient to verify compliance. Such a potential new nuclear arms control regime could be unpredictable in terms of its application, effectiveness, the number of states willing to follow through, and more broadly, the path forward to ensure the world is not dragged into a nuclear war.

The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury in late February 2026, targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and seeking to remove its political leadership. Although the operation achieved its initial tactical objectives with high precision, it provoked an asymmetric retaliatory response from the remaining Iranian forces. This response took the form of a comprehensive blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical maritime artery for energy transport, triggering a severe global economic shock. Such disruption could propel the international system towards reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and accelerating the adoption of alternative domestic energy solutions, most notably nuclear power.   At the same time, global electricity demand is rising sharply, driven by the rapid expansion of advanced artificial intelligence infrastructure and high-performance computing facilities. This sudden disruption of fuel supplies places policymakers in major industrial economies under immediate economic and security pressures, while simultaneously exposing the profound consequences of closing the Strait. In this context, the present analysis examines the repercussions of the Strait of Hormuz's closure on global supply chains. It then develops a historical comparison with the oil price shocks of the 1970s, illustrating how those crises redirected states towards nuclear technology. The study concludes by analysing emerging regulatory and financial measures, as well as new geopolitical alignments, that are accelerating the global drive to construct nuclear reactors in 2026.

Iran’s uranium enrichment dilemma constitutes the central axis of the ongoing nuclear dispute, where technical considerations intersect with imperatives of national sovereignty, and where international legal frameworks collide with the strategic logic of deterrence. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic, the possession of a full nuclear fuel cycle—including domestic enrichment—is not merely a technical aspiration but an inherent sovereign right enshrined in Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet, within Iran’s political consciousness, this “right” transcends legalistic interpretation; it has become a symbolic pillar of national autonomy and a manifestation of defiance against what is perceived as Western hegemony.   Conversely, the U.S. and its allies view the same enrichment capability as a direct gateway to weaponization. The centrifuge-based architecture of Iran’s program enables, with little more than a political decision, a rapid transition from low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade fissile material within a matter of weeks. These concerns escalated significantly following the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) May 2025 report confirming that Iran had amassed over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—an amount theoretically sufficient to produce three to five nuclear weapons, should the enrichment level be increased to 90%, without requiring any additional infrastructure.   Iran’s historical experience—from its exclusion from the Eurodif consortium in 1979 to the collapse of the Tehran Research Reactor fuel deal in 2009—has deeply entrenched the belief among Iran’s ruling elite that reliance on external fuel guarantees is neither secure nor sustainable. As such, any negotiated settlement that requires Tehran to abandon domestic enrichment is perceived as a fundamental affront to its sovereign dignity and strategic autonomy.   Thus, the essence of the conflict lies not in centrifuge counts or enrichment levels per se, but in the deeply embedded political architecture of mutual distrust. A sustainable resolution cannot be achieved without a broader security framework that redefines Iran’s position within both the regional and global order.   This study adopts a multi-layered approach to the enrichment dilemma, treating it not as a narrowly technical issue but as a strategic contest between sovereign entitlement and non-proliferation imperatives. It proceeds along four main analytical axes: the technical properties of enrichment, the political and strategic motivations driving Iran’s position, the security calculus of Western powers, and the viability of proposed diplomatic frameworks. The study ultimately affirms that any lasting agreement must emerge from a comprehensive reconfiguration of Iran’s relationship with the international system.