In an article dated July 16, 2008, titled “The Iranian missile tests,” The Daily Star discussed the concept of a nuclear illusion surrounding Iran, shaped by US-Israeli strategic narratives rather than Iran’s actions. Despite continuous portrayals of Iran as a nuclear threat, evidence, such as the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate, indicated that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003. However, this reality was overshadowed by speculation, exaggeration of threats, and geopolitical drama. The narrative persisted, fueling pressure, polarization, and potential conflict based more on manipulation of fear than on concrete facts.
For almost 20 years, the global discourse focused on Iran’s alleged imminent nuclear weapons capability, yet each year passed without the predicted outcome. Instead of nuclear weapons, what materialized was conflict. This discrepancy between predictions and reality raises questions about how a hypothetical threat evolved into a disastrous reality and what it reveals about global power dynamics.
By 2008, it was evident that Iran lacked both nuclear weapons and significant military strength to pose a substantial threat. Despite having a much smaller defense budget compared to the US, Iran’s military capabilities were limited, with an air force relying on outdated equipment and naval forces primarily focused on coastal defense.
Nevertheless, the discourse continued to portray Iran as a grave international threat, not due to its actual capabilities but due to strategic framing. While Iran maintained its nuclear program was peaceful and engaged in monitored enrichment for sanctions relief, suspicions overshadowed evidence, and capabilities were misconstrued as intentions for harm.
The repeated claim that Iran was “months away” from acquiring nuclear weapons, echoed for nearly two decades, should have raised skepticism. Instead, the persistence of this narrative became validation. Israeli leaders warned of Iran’s imminent nuclear capability, but the predicted threshold was never reached. Acting on perceived threats rather than evidence can lead to real disasters, as seen in historical parallels with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction justification for invasion.
The Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for global oil supply, remains a key point of global stability. Disruptions in this region can impact oil prices, leading to economic shocks worldwide. Geopolitical economics, intertwining geopolitical behavior with economic systems, and currency stability, are key factors impacting global stability. The credibility of political systems influences currency strength, with the US dollar’s dominance tied to predictability and institutional trust. Policy decisions based on narratives rather than evidence can erode this foundation, leading to global repercussions such as increased gold purchases by central banks and shifts towards non-dollar settlement mechanisms.
While the US maintains military superiority, declining trust among allies and partners limits its strategic position. The evolving global order sees European nations seeking autonomous security arrangements, Middle Eastern states adjusting alignments, and the BRICS group benefiting from confidence erosion in traditional powers. Power today is not only about military strength but also about persuading others through predictability and adherence to shared rules for long-term influence.
The focus on eliminating perceived threats has contributed to a broader environment of systemic insecurity, rather than addressing actual nuclear threats. This approach has led to economic, institutional, and geopolitical consequences, affecting not only Iran but also the global landscape. Sustainable leadership requires evidence-based policies, strategic restraint, and credibility, without which credibility is the ultimate casualty, diminishing power and influence.
The question arises not about Iran’s nuclear goals but about the future of US power. Sustainable leadership cannot rely solely on force and narrative construction; it demands evidence-based policies, strategic prudence, and commitment to credibility. Without recalibration, credibility, not territory or alliances, will be the enduring casualty, leaving power to linger without leading.
The author, Dr. Abdullah A Dewan, is a professor emeritus of economics at Eastern Michigan University and a former physicist and nuclear engineer at BAEC. The views expressed in the article are solely the author’s own.
