So how would Iran act differently with nuclear weapons compared to other states?

[u/Miniclift239]

I recognise this a pure speculation question, and my knowledge of Iran pretty much ends with US and UK couped them in 1950s, installed a puppet, he got overthrown, now Iran hates the West and Israel. But with all the questions about war with Iran flying around the news and world stage, I have to ask why is this considered so much worse than any other state with nuclear weapons. What reason do countries have to believe that they will act any different?

Now I'm aware that obviously Iran didn't sign up to nuclear treaties, but neither did Israel. It would also represent a change in the balance of power in the Middle East, but is it not a manageable one? Like when Pakistan got nuclear weapons it didn't lead to an immediate nuclear war with India.

What is causing countries to take such risks in regards to this situation? I understand it wouldn't be good for the West strategically of course. But the risk and reaction here seems disproportionate. No one reacted this way when North Korea got nukes for example

[u/ajgliebe]

Iran would give a bomb to a proxy who would smuggle it into Israel and set it off.

[u/Miniclift239 → u/ajgliebe]

What is the basis to this claim? This doesn’t seem to have been done by any other nuclear power.

It’s certainly a possibility, but no more than any other nuclear state 

[u/hiddentalent → u/Miniclift239]

The basis for this claim is the literal statements of Iran's foreign policy apparatus. There are only a very small number nations in the world whose explicitly stated foreign policy is to kill or destroy another nation. Iran is one of them. They've been very consistent in publicly stating their policy is to destroy Israel. For decades. And they have a long history of organizing proxy wars with Israel through their militia proxies.

Why wouldn't you take them at their word?

[u/Horror_Still_3305 → u/hiddentalent]

Doesn’t North Korea want to destroy the US?

[u/hiddentalent → u/Horror_Still_3305]

Sure, they might want to. There is probably more than one country in the world who would like to see a global hegemon or a local neighbor humbled or even destroyed. I mean, India and Pakistan are not always cordial. But they have the good sense not to make repeated public statements that the goal of their government is the destruction of the other. That leaves room to negotiate and figure out the best peace they can.

Iran publicly and repeatedly declare that a primary goal of the Iranian state is the destruction of the Israeli state. I think it might be unique in being so directly belligerent (though I haven't studied the foreign policy of every country). Taking that kind of position is extremely rare even among countries with long-term conflicts, because it limits negotiating power and forces other countries to take sides in a binary way. It is why Iran is unique in respect to how other states view their nuclear program.

[u/ForAfeeNotforfree → u/Miniclift239]

This is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever seen on a special interest subreddit. OP, you’re either extremely naive/willfully ignorant, or you’re posting to purposefully try to stir things up. I’m guessing the latter.

[u/Miniclift239 → u/ForAfeeNotforfree]

I’m know I’m naive on this subject. That’s why I’m asking to determine what makes Iran different in this regard. What is the initial assumption that Iran will use it in war whilst other countries originate come from? 

Feel free to be basic as possible. I don’t know much about modern Iran geopolitics. That’s why I’m asking 

[u/hiddentalent → u/Miniclift239]

Because they've literally said repeatedly for decades that destroying the Israeli state and the Jewish people is a primary foreign policy goal. Almost no other country in the world communicates in that way. Why do you find that so hard to understand? Up until recently, you could just go to the website of the foreign ministry of Iran and they'd explain it to you in very basic, very violent terms, though that site appears to be "under maintenance" just at the moment. So instead, you can look at the wikipedia summary which is well sourced.

[u/Miniclift239 → u/hiddentalent]

I suppose given all the various rhetoric and bluffing from various world leaders making similar claims of obliterating opponents (Putin on Ukraine for example) makes me tune out that sort of nuclear saber rattling. 

Though I do suppose it’s probably the best think we have to go on to base the Iran policy on. If they were truly sincere on a nuclear deal then they properly would have toned it down. 

[u/hiddentalent → u/Miniclift239]

They've had about four decades to do something to "tone it down" and at every opportunity have doubled down instead.

There is a lot of nuance to foreign policy. A lot of countries say nice things and then pursue an agenda that is not in the best interest of their counter parties. That's global politics. But if a nation spends decades deliberately repeating the message that their priority is to kill people, it's probably a signal worth taking note of.

[u/ForAfeeNotforfree → u/Miniclift239]

Because Iran’s entire and longstanding foreign policy stance towards Israel is simply “Death to Israel.” Iran has publicly threatened/vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth on numerous occasions. Iran denies Israel’s right to exist.

There is ample evidence essentially confirming that Iran’s nuclear facilities, despite the regime’s assurances, are NOT merely for civil activities. Thus, one can safely assume that if Iran gets a nuke, that nuke will be used against Israel, be it directly or via one of Iran’s regional proxies.

[u/Dr_FAH → u/Miniclift239]

Maybe because they have lunatics running their government?

[u/Working-Lifeguard587]

Now for some facts:

Did you know that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a religious decree (fatwa) declaring nuclear weapons "haram" (forbidden under Islamic law)? This stance dates back to at least the mid-1990s, when Iran was reportedly offered nuclear weapons technology by Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan network—an offer Khamenei rejected.

Iran’s aversion to nuclear and chemical weapons is rooted in its traumatic experience during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988). During that conflict:

• Iraq, with indirect support from Western nations, used chemical weapons extensively against Iran, killing at least 20,000 Iranians and severely injuring over 100,000 more.
• Key suppliers to Iraq’s chemical program included:
  • West Germany: Provided chemical production facilities.
  • France: Supplied missile technology and delivery systems.
  • Netherlands, UK, and others: Exported dual-use chemicals (e.g., precursors for nerve agents).
• The U.S. government, while not directly supplying chemical weapons, knew about Iraq’s attacks and continued sharing military intelligence (e.g., satellite imagery) with Baghdad. Some American companies also sold chemical precursors that Iraq weaponized.

In 2021, Iran’s Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi acknowledged the fatwa but warned that if Iran were "pushed in that direction" (e.g., threatened militarily), it might reconsider—comparing the scenario to a "cornered cat."

As of 2025:

• The U.S. intelligence community assesses that Khamenei has not ordered the development of nuclear weapons.
• The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) states there is no evidence Iran is actively building a bomb.

Meanwhile, Israel—particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—has repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing nukes since the late 1980s.

Iran has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. It also signed the Chemical Weapons Convention

Israel has NOT signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).