End Of Deterrence? How To Face The Multiplying Risks Of Nuclear Conflict

–OpEd–

PARIS — In a world where conflicts are on the rise, is nuclear deterrence the only option we have left? Is deterrence still effective, not in preventing war, as we sometimes hear, but in preventing it from escalating to catastrophic levels?

The Gaza conflict, which began with Hamas’s attack on Israel, has been extensively analyzed, yet few perspectives have focused on this specific nuclear aspect.

While Operation Iron Sword is a larger-scale continuation of Israel’s previous interventions against terrorism in Gaza since 2006, the current situation presents a number of notable differences. Israel’s surroundings have deteriorated, the Western world is facing challenges and dilemmas, and the global context has undergone significant changes.

The war in Gaza thus represents more than just another chapter in the prolonged Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Depending on how the conflict is resolved, it has the potential to alter regional dynamics positively or, at worst, pose a substantial risk to global peace.

Iran on the edge

Iran’s neighboring countries — Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon — which previously acted as a buffer, now face significant destabilization due to Tehran’s activities. The Israel-Iran tension often translates into unattributed strikes, clandestine activities, and cyberattacks.

Since the conflict began, Iran has amplified hostilities through groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi forces, albeit showing a degree of restraint in recent months. As Israel aims to avoid multiple fronts opening up, the situation might seem controlled, but the atmosphere remains highly tense for various reasons.

The acknowledgment in 2006 by then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel possesses nuclear capabilities is no longer a secret. Meanwhile, Iran, in its nuclear development, has moved from a stage of infancy a decade ago to now nearing completion.

The United States hopes to prevent the Gaza conflict from escalating into a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran. By deploying two naval air groups as a deterrent, it’s signaling both sides to adhere to certain boundaries. This scenario underscores the onset of a new era centered on nuclear dynamics.

Amid Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine, this current nuclear age stands as notably unstable. In the Cold War era, deterrence proved highly effective. Subsequently, from 1991 to 2021, no conflict, no matter its duration or intensity, was seen through a nuclear lens.

The more nuclear powers, the harder deterrence becomes. Like too many players at a poker table.

The conflict in Ukraine, representing the first instance of nuclear threat since the Cold War’s end, and the Gaza conflict, marking the first time a nuclear state has provided military support to another, highlight the redefined role of nuclear weapons in handling crises.

An unstable third age

This development isn’t surprising in a world marked by both the trivialization and proliferation of nuclear weapons. It’s worrying because the more nuclear powers there are, the harder deterrence becomes. It’s like having too many players at a poker table.

Moreover, the line between nuclear and conventional weapons is becoming blurred as powers find new ways of delivering and deploying nuclear weapons. This is making deterrence even more fragile. Disarmament treaties have been nullified, and discussions on disarmament have come to a halt.

Presently, there are only two consultation frameworks for the states that officially have nuclear weapons — the P3 (United States, France, United Kingdom) and P5 (which includes China and Russia). Their role focuses on short-term issues during acute crises, but they lack a broader agenda.

Nuclear weapons are becoming a serious threat in global conflicts. There is therefore an urgent need to reestablish communication channels and confidence-building measures among nuclear powers.