ICAN says nuclear weapons failed to deliver strategic gains in Middle East conflict

The recent agreement between the United States and Iran shows that nuclear weapons failed to provide any meaningful strategic advantage during the Middle East conflict.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has said the recent agreement between the United States and Iran shows that nuclear weapons failed to provide any meaningful strategic advantage during the Middle East conflict. The organization believes the outcome demonstrates that diplomacy, rather than military strength backed by nuclear arsenals, played the decisive role in ending hostilities.

The agreement, signed by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, is intended to bring an end to the conflict that began earlier this year and unsettled economies around the world. It also opens the way for detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme and possible relief from international sanctions imposed on Tehran.

In its response to the deal, ICAN pointed out that Israel remains the only country in the Middle East widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. According to the organization, Israel is estimated to have around 90 nuclear warheads. It also noted that Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty or the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The Nobel Peace Prize winning campaign argued that lasting peace in the region requires attention to the existing nuclear arsenal rather than focusing only on a country that does not possess nuclear weapons. It said discussions should address the presence of nuclear weapons already in the region if governments truly want to reduce tensions and improve long term security.

ICAN Executive Director Melissa Parke said the conflict challenged the belief that nuclear weapons guarantee security or political influence. She said two nuclear armed countries launched attacks against a nation that does not have nuclear weapons, yet those military operations failed to produce the expected strategic benefits. According to her, the fighting pushed the region closer to a major disaster instead of creating greater stability.

The organization also highlighted that Iran’s commitment in the agreement not to develop or obtain nuclear weapons does not introduce a new obligation. It explained that Iran has been a member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty since 1970 and has long been legally required to avoid acquiring nuclear weapons. The country is also monitored under inspection systems managed by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure compliance with its international commitments.

ICAN stressed that international inspectors had already concluded before the conflict that Iran was not a nuclear weapon state. It argued that the latest agreement simply repeats existing legal responsibilities rather than creating new restrictions on Tehran.

The campaign expressed hope that governments around the world would study the lessons of the conflict carefully. It said the recent events should encourage global leaders to recognise that nuclear weapons increase risks instead of providing genuine security. ICAN maintained that diplomacy, negotiations and international agreements remain the most effective tools for preventing war and achieving lasting peace in regions facing political and military tensions.