Imagine yourself in the 22nd century, on January 1, 2100.

• If there were a nuclear war in the 21st century, who would dare to argue that nuclear deterrence ensures peace and will never lead to a nuclear war,
• If there hasn’t been a nuclear war, we might question the wisdom of maintaining indefinitely a system that is never used, costs a fortune, and poses a real risk.

In the 21st century, we no longer think about deterrence in those terms; we are content with a short-term view and the reassuring feeling of being protected by nuclear deterrence.

No 21st-century solution is satisfactory. A country like Ukraine, which agreed to give up all its nuclear weapons in exchange for a Russian promise of non-intervention, can only bitterly regret this reality. The Russia-Ukraine war likely would never have taken place if Ukraine had retained its nuclear arsenal.

The balance of nuclear terror is becoming less and less effective. Some countries boast of having missiles superior to those of others, giving the impression that they could unleash hell on earth.

A solution must be found to this reality. Nuclear proliferation will continue. If Israel settles for a short-term view, hoping to remain the only country in the region with nuclear weapons, this is no longer the case with Pakistan.

The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons and to have destroyed a country twice on the pretext that it might acquire nuclear weapons. The first time, it was a lie intended to divert public attention from the true objectives. The second time, it was another lie based on a reality that did not match the statements made by the countries that went to war.

A war against Iran will not solve the nuclear problem that exists today and will continue to exist in the future.

Ideally, we would be able to deploy a “nuclear bomb neutralizer,” but at present that remains the stuff of imagination and science fiction, with virtually no credibility.

Naej DRANER

March 20, 2026