In the tense world of the early 21st century, it sometimes seems that humanity is walking with open eyes toward another global confrontation. Regional wars, tensions between major powers, and the acceleration of the arms race create a constant sense of danger.
Yet a more sober look at the global balance of power reveals a paradox. Precisely in a period when many countries possess significant nuclear arsenals, the likelihood of a full-scale world war is actually decreasing.
The central reason is the principle of nuclear deterrence. Since the end of World War II, when the United States used nuclear weapons against Japan, the major powers understood that this is not a weapon meant for ordinary use on the battlefield but rather an extreme instrument of deterrence. Its very existence creates a situation often described as a balance of terror, a reality in which any use of such a weapon would lead to almost immediate mutual destruction.
As a result, nuclear weapons have for decades functioned primarily as a tool intended to prevent war rather than ignite it. The United States, Russia, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and even North Korea possess various nuclear capabilities, yet in these countries, such weapons are seen first and foremost as a guarantee of national security and as a deterrent factor. Even when severe tensions occur, as we see between India and Pakistan or between Russia and the West, the awareness of the possible devastation prevents the sides from escalating the conflict into a full-scale war.
In this sense, the growing number of nuclear states has to some degree created strategic stability. Every country understands that the use of such weapons would trigger a devastating response. The cold logic of deterrence therefore prevails over the temptation to use them.
superiority of Israeli, American weapons
Another factor reducing the risk of a world war is the technological gap between the weapons systems of different countries. In recent years, the superiority of American and Israeli weapons systems has been demonstrated repeatedly, from advanced interception systems to intelligence capabilities and precision warfare. Missile defense systems, advanced aircraft, and sophisticated cyber and intelligence capabilities create a defensive layer that would have been unimaginable only a few decades ago.
The strategic meaning of this superiority is significant. A nuclear confrontation between superpowers is likely only when both sides believe there is military symmetry between them. When one side knows its rival possesses a clear technological and intelligence advantage, the likelihood of escalation decreases dramatically. Recognition of Western military superiority, together with advanced Israeli defensive capabilities, sends a clear and unmistakable message to every country observing from the sidelines.
China and Russia also understand the implications of a direct confrontation with the West. Although they invest enormous resources in developing weapons systems, they are aware that an all-out conflict could lead to unprecedented destruction for all sides. Therefore, even when international tensions rise, they usually remain in the diplomatic, economic, or regional arena and do not deteriorate into a global war.
Within this overall picture, however, there is one dangerous exception: Iran. Unlike other countries where nuclear weapons are perceived primarily as a deterrent, the Iranian regime is strongly rooted in a revolutionary religious ideology. This worldview, which combines aspirations for regional hegemony with extreme rhetoric toward its enemies, raises deep concern within the international community.
The Iranian regime does not hide its desire to expand its influence in the Middle East, and one of its stated goals for years has been the destruction of the State of Israel. When a state guided by such a revolutionary ideology approaches nuclear capability, the threat becomes far more complex than that posed by other nuclear-armed states.
According to various intelligence assessments, Iran has already accumulated a significant quantity of highly enriched uranium. The amount is estimated at about 400 kilograms enriched to roughly 60%, an advanced technological stage on the path toward weapons-grade fissile material. According to various reports, this material is dispersed and concealed at several facilities in order to make it more difficult to locate.
For that reason, one of the central objectives of the international community is to locate those stockpiles and prevent further progress in Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, it is also important to disrupt Iran’s missile program. According to various assessments, the Islamic Republic still does not possess a fully operational system capable of launching a nuclear warhead over long distances. Preventing the development of such a capability could be a decisive factor in preventing the nuclear threat from becoming a reality.
American policy in recent years, particularly during periods in which a tougher line toward Iran was emphasized, has been aimed precisely at addressing this threat. Economic pressure, intelligence activity, and international efforts to expose Tehran’s nuclear facilities were intended to prevent a situation in which a state guided by an extreme ideology would possess the most dangerous weapon ever created by humanity.
AT THE same time as the danger posed by the Iranian regime becomes clearer, there is growing recognition that this is not merely a regional problem of the Middle East but a global threat. The regime in Tehran is not simply a conventional government pursuing strategic ambitions: It is an ideological regime combining religious zeal with a drive for regional dominance and systematic support for terrorist organizations. It funds, arms, and directs militias and groups operating in numerous countries and undermines international stability.
When such a regime approaches nuclear capability, the danger is not only to Israel or the countries of the region but to the entire world. For this reason, there is increasing understanding within the international community that stopping Iran’s nuclear project alone is not sufficient. In the long term, a profound change in Tehran and the replacement of the extremist regime with a more responsible government may be a necessary condition for global stability and for preventing the greatest danger of all, the use of nuclear weapons by leadership driven by extreme ideology.
Ultimately, the current global balance of power may itself become a restraining force. When the major powers are aware of the terrible cost of nuclear war and when clear technological superiority prevents the illusion of an easy victory, the likelihood of a global confrontation declines. The central challenge for the international community is no longer preventing war between the major powers but stopping attempts by radical regimes to break through the boundaries of deterrence.
The world may not be safer but it is more sober. That sobriety, based on strength, deterrence, and an understanding of the true price of nuclear war, is the reason that at this moment, despite all the tensions, the risk of a full scale world war is smaller than it appears.
The writer is the CEO of Radios 100FM, honorary consul and vice dean of the Consular Corps, president of the Israeli Radio Communications Association, and formerly a listener representative for Army Radio and a correspondent for NBC television.