As rockets and drones rain down on Israel and Gaza burns, a far graver threat looms on the horizon. The Middle East, long a tinderbox of rivalries and resentments, stands on the brink of a nuclear arms race that could redefine global security for generations to come.

Iran's recent ballistic missile barrage against Israel, while not nuclear, served as a chilling demonstration of Tehran's burgeoning military capabilities. The attack, which overwhelmed Israeli air defences, showcased Iran's mastery of hypersonic delivery systems – a technological leap that renders traditional missile shields obsolete and which has compelled Israel to request anti-ballistic missile systems, including THAADs. Iran’s display of force was no mere flexing of conventional muscle; it was a thinly veiled nuclear threat.

Though Iran remains, by most estimates, some distance from joining the nuclear club (unlike Israel), its intentions are clear. The Islamic Republic has effectively signalled that, should Israel or its allies consider a decisive strike, Tehran possesses both the means and the will to cross the nuclear Rubicon. Israeli officials are mulling a “significant retaliation” in response to Iran's recent attack, which involved around 200 ballistic missiles. Tel Aviv is now weighing its options on a hit against Iran’s infrastructure that wouldn’t cause an all-out hot war with Tehran.

Public opinion in Iran appears to back this position of nuclear deterrence. Iran has also been pushing Russia and North Korea to help it out with its defensive capabilities. In fact, a summer survey found that a majority of Iranians now support nuclear weapons, which is a sea-change from the previous opinion polls in recent years. A survey, conducted between February 20 and May 26, was designed and carried out by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in collaboration with the Toronto-based company IranPoll. It used an online panel of 2,280 Iranian citizens from across the board.

The ramifications of an Iranian bomb would cascade across the region. Saudi Arabia, Iran's arch-rival, would almost certainly seek to match this capability and has been building its nuclear capability in the past few years with its power plant projects. Riyadh has long hinted at nuclear ambitions and, faced with a nuclear-armed Iran, would likely accelerate any clandestine programmes. Turkey, too, might join this perilous race, unwilling to cede regional influence on its neighbours.

Indeed, the discourse is already shifting across the region. Turkish media outlets are openly debating the merits of nuclear armament, a discussion that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. This is not mere sabre-rattling; it is the sound of a region recalibrating its strategic calculus. Israel does not admit it, but it is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East after a whistleblower released information about the programme in the 1990s. So far, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not said he would use his nuclear weapons.

The irony is palpable. While much of the world's attention has been fixed on Ukraine and Russia's nuclear posturing, it is the Middle East that may trigger the next great proliferation crisis. The United States, belatedly recognising the gravity of the situation, has begun to make overtures. President Biden's recent call for unconditional talks with Russia and China on non-proliferation is a tacit admission of the gathering storm.

Yet Washington's credibility as an honest broker is compromised by its unwavering support for Israel and its role in the current conflagration. The US finds itself in the unenviable position of trying to douse a fire it helped to stoke.

Russian political scientist Ivan Starodubtsev states: “Let's start with the most important thing. And the most important thing is that a nuclear arms race is about to begin in the region. Iran is still some distance away from possessing nuclear weapons,” he said.

“But at the same time, it demonstrated with its attack on Israel that it already has delivery vehicles. And not just delivery vehicles, but delivery vehicles – hypersonic ones – that cannot be intercepted. And Iran has clearly demonstrated this. This attack clearly showed that if any serious attack from Israel follows, Iran will easily cross the red line of possessing nuclear weapons with all the possible consequences,” Starodubtsev noted.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi's statement in Baghdad – that Iran is "absolutely ready for war" yet strives for peace – is more than mere diplomatic posturing. It is a calculated message to allies and adversaries alike, a reminder of Tehran's pivotal role in the region's complex geopolitical chessboard.

This dual-pronged approach is emblematic of Iran's strategy: to project strength while ostensibly advocating for diplomacy. By affirming its readiness for conflict while simultaneously pledging efforts towards a "just peace" in Gaza and Lebanon, Tehran is attempting to position itself as both a formidable military power and a responsible regional actor.

However, such rhetoric must be viewed through the lens of Iran's actions, not just its words. The Islamic Republic's support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and its broader "Axis of Resistance" against Israel and Western interests in the region tell a different story.

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which has claimed over 2,000 lives and displaced a million more, bears the hallmarks of Iran's strategic depth doctrine.

Israel's military campaign in southern Lebanon, ostensibly aimed at creating conditions for the return of 60,000 evacuated northern residents, is as much about countering Iranian influence as it is about addressing immediate security concerns. But Israel has so far been unable to deal with Hezbollah’s increasingly difficult-to-counter drone attacks, as has been shown in the past 24 hours.