‘After Iran, is Turkey Israel’s next target?’

This is apropos a letter to the Editor carried by the newspaper on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and yesterday.

Viewed through this lens, the debate over Iran becomes even more significant. Supporters of nuclear deterrence argue that if a state lacks a nuclear capability while facing a nuclear-armed adversary, it remains vulnerable to coercion and military pressure. They contend that possession of nuclear weapons by both sides can create a balance that discourages war, whereas a monopoly of nuclear power creates strategic inequality.

For this reason, some analysts believe that the central issue in the Middle East is not simply conventional military superiority but the unequal distribution of nuclear deterrence. As long as one state is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons while its rivals do not, the strategic balance will remain tilted. From this perspective, the debate is less about military hardware and more about whether lasting stability can exist when deterrence is available to some states but denied to others.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026