Recent military actions by the U.S. and Israel against Iran have sparked concerns among experts about the long-term implications for nuclear proliferation. Joseph Rodgers, deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ nuclear project, highlighted that while the immediate threat of Iran's nuclear proliferation may be temporarily diminished, this aggressive approach could create new risks. If Iranian nuclear facilities are destroyed, it may drive scientists to other countries or groups interested in nuclear weapons, further complicating the international security landscape.

Analysts suggest that the military approach adopted by the U.S. under Donald Trump sends a strong message to other nations that developing nuclear capabilities might be the safer strategy to negotiate with the U.S. Rather than leveraging nuclear technology as a bargaining chip, as seen with Iranian negotiations, countries may instead follow North Korea's model of quickly obtaining nuclear weapons. Evan Cooper from the Stimson Center remarked that U.S. military actions might lead regimes to enhance their nuclear programs to avoid being overthrown, thereby diminishing diplomatic options.

These developments come amid ongoing protests in Iran, raising fears that the chaos could lead to a loss of control over Iran's enriched nuclear materials. The precedent set by Libya in the early 2000s—where Gaddafi surrendered his nuclear program only to be ousted during Western military intervention—adds to the apprehension surrounding nuclear non-proliferation strategies. North Korea has often cited Libya to justify its own nuclear pursuits, suggesting that the current situation may inadvertently bolster the resolve of nations seeking to acquire nuclear arms.