Israel’s deep-seated fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon may, in fact, be eclipsed by a far more destabilizing possibility: a domino effect of nuclear proliferation across West Asia. If Iran, under pressure from escalating conflicts and growing internal hardline voices, were to cross the nuclear threshold, it could set off an unprecedented arms race in the region. Saudi Arabia has already hinted that it would pursue a bomb of its own should Tehran acquire one, and such a move could draw other heavyweights like Turkey and Egypt into the race, unwilling to remain unarmed in a rapidly shifting strategic landscape. For Israel, this scenario represents a nightmare beyond Iran alone one in which the very balance of power across the Middle East is rewritten, creating a tinderbox of nuclear-armed rivals at its doorstep.
The uneasy calm between Israel and Iran may have held for now, but the deeper crisis it has triggered points to a looming shadow over West Asia: the prospect of nuclear proliferation. For Israel, the nightmare scenario has always been an Iranian bomb. But in reality, the bomb that Israel fears may not come from Iran alone it could be the beginning of a chain reaction across the region, with consequences stretching far beyond its borders.
Israel’s June airstrikes conducted with U.S. backing were intended to cripple Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure and eliminate its scientific talent. Despite Iran’s repeated insistence that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and even IAEA reports that offered Tehran some credibility, Israel chose preemptive destruction. The paradox, however, is that this campaign may end up fueling the very outcome it sought to prevent.
Iran’s hardliners now have the strongest argument they could ever wield: that only a nuclear deterrent can guarantee national survival. The examples are telling North Korea’s untouchability compared with Libya’s collapse after abandoning its nuclear ambitions. Israel itself, long believed to be a nuclear-armed state, benefits from precisely the deterrence Tehran’s hawks covet.
Yet Iran’s calculus is far from simple. Israel has repeatedly drawn a “red line” around the prospect of an Iranian bomb, and has proven it is prepared to strike first. That leaves Tehran walking a knife’s edge: it can seek the safety of deterrence or risk the devastation of an Israeli onslaught. So far, caution has prevailed. But should Iran cross that threshold, the risk would extend far beyond a bilateral conflict.
The greater danger is a proliferation cascade. Saudi Arabia has already hinted that it will match Iran, warhead for warhead, should Tehran ever succeed. Turkey and Egypt each regional heavyweights with their own ambitions may be forced to follow suit. West Asia could transform overnight from a region defined by oil politics and proxy wars into one dominated by nuclear brinkmanship.
For Israel, the danger then multiplies: the threat would not just be a Shi’a bomb in Tehran, but a Sunni bomb in Riyadh, a Turkish deterrent in Ankara, and potentially an Egyptian arsenal in Cairo. This regionalization of the nuclear question would make Israel’s traditional doctrine of preemptive strikes not just impractical but suicidal.
For India, the stakes are equally high. A nuclearized West Asia would mean that New Delhi could fall within the range of multiple new ballistic missile programmes an uncomfortable shift for a country already juggling a tense northern frontier with China and Pakistan. Beyond security, India’s economic lifelines run through this region: energy imports, trade corridors, and the welfare of millions of Indian expatriates.
India has so far tried to maintain an uneasy neutrality, balancing deep defense cooperation with Israel against centuries-old trade and cultural ties with Iran. But as the regional temperature rises, neutrality may no longer be an option. India could position itself as one of the few credible mediators with channels open to both sides. Doing so would not only enhance New Delhi’s diplomatic standing but also serve its long-term security interests.
The collapse of the JCPOA is perhaps the single greatest factor accelerating this crisis. With the U.S. withdrawal under Trump and subsequent Israeli strikes, Iran no longer sees any reason to restrain its nuclear programme. Western powers continue to impose sanctions, while Tehran responds by limiting IAEA inspections. The cycle is now one of suspicion feeding retaliation, with each side convinced that the other is acting in bad faith.
What this creates is not just the risk of proliferation, but of catastrophic miscalculation. In a fog of half-truths and broken communication, an Israeli strike misinterpreted, an Iranian enrichment milestone misunderstood, or a U.S. response misread could ignite a war no side truly wants.
The idea of regional arms control, once floated as a visionary goal, now lies buried under the rubble of bombed-out Iranian facilities. The legacy of this conflict may not be nuclear war but a permanent erosion of trust. The most realistic danger is not a deliberate Iranian bomb, but an accidental slide into war born of fear, secrecy, and miscommunication.
This is where India’s role becomes critical. New Delhi cannot afford to remain a bystander, because the ripple effects will reach its own shores whether through energy shocks, refugee flows, or new missile ranges. Instead of waiting for Western powers to dictate terms, India should leverage its balanced relations with both Israel and Iran to initiate dialogue.
The choice is clear: either watch as West Asia drifts toward a nuclear tinderbox, or step in to help create an architecture of transparency and restraint. The bomb Israel fears may not come from Iran, but from the region-wide arms race Israel’s own actions could unleash. If diplomacy does not fill the current vacuum, force and fear will and in that scenario, everyone, from Jerusalem to New Delhi, will lose.