The Elephant in the ...desert by Thanos Kalamidas

While the world’s political commentators, defence analysts, and late-night news panels remain fixated on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, an oddly selective blindness persists when it comes to one of the Middle East’s worst-kept secrets: Israel’s nuclear arsenal. We whisper about it, we dance around it diplomatically, and we write treaties that pretend it doesn’t exist. The charade has gone on for decades.

And it begs the question, when did international security become a buffet where some diners get full immunity while others are fed sanctions and scrutiny?

Let’s be blunt: the global discourse around nuclear proliferation reeks of hypocrisy. Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, real or exaggerated, have triggered layers of diplomatic pressure, espionage, assassinations, sabotage, and sanctions. Every Iranian centrifuge becomes a breaking news story. Entire geopolitical strategies pivot on whether Tehran has a “breakout capacity.”

Now contrast that with Israel. A country that is widely acknowledged, even by its allies, to possess a sophisticated and operational nuclear arsenal. Estimates vary, but the usual consensus hovers around 80 to 90 warheads, with some sources claiming more. Yet, Israel is neither a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor subject to IAEA inspections. It exists in a twilight zone of strategic ambiguity that the West treats like a diplomatic antique: too delicate to touch and too inconvenient to acknowledge.

Why? Because hypocrisy wears a tuxedo when attending the Western gala of realpolitik.

Let’s not mistake this for an anti-Israel argument; it is, rather, a pro-consistency one. If nuclear weapons are, by definition, a threat to global peace (and history has offered us no reason to think otherwise), then they are just as dangerous in Tel Aviv as they are in Tehran. You cannot rationally argue that an Iranian bomb would destabilize the region, while simultaneously pretending an Israeli one keeps it stable. That's not logic. That’s narrative-building.

Israel’s security concerns are legitimate. It is surrounded by states and non-state actors who have, at various points, expressed open hostility toward its existence. But so too are Iran’s concerns not built from paranoia alone. It has been invaded, sanctioned, isolated, and demonized for decades. The idea that one state has a moral monopoly on insecurity while the other is permanently cast as the villain is not international law. It’s international theatre.

Let’s indulge a small thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that Iran did acquire a nuclear weapon. The result wouldn’t likely be a spontaneous launch toward Tel Aviv or Riyadh. It would, more realistically, be used as a deterrent, just like every other nuclear power. Unpleasant, yes. But not unprecedented. Nuclear weapons are awful, but they are also political tools of survival. And let’s be clear: if Iran were to seek deterrence, it would be seeking it against an already nuclear-armed Israel.

But instead of an honest conversation, we get a rigged game. The Western powers have decided that some nukes are responsible, others are irrational. Some governments can be trusted with doomsday devices; others can’t even be trusted with enriched fuel rods. The absurdity would be funny if it weren’t so terrifying.

The U.S. and its allies have spent years obsessively monitoring Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, they fund and arm Israel, offering it not just weapons but diplomatic impunity. American presidents have gone out of their way to avoid uttering the words “Israeli nuclear weapons,” as though acknowledging them might summon some ancient curse.

This strategic silence does no one any favours. It delegitimizes international law. It undermines non-proliferation. And it poisons the global conversation on peace and security with double standards. Let’s call it what it is: nuclear apartheid.

It’s high time the world stopped playing favourites. If we truly believe in global disarmament or even just responsible governance of weapons of mass destruction—then the conversation must include all nuclear powers. Not just the ones that make for convenient villains.

Israel must be part of the nuclear dialogue, not exempt from it. Regional peace depends not on selective denial but on mutual transparency. Security built on opacity and arrogance is not peace, it’s a ticking time bomb wrapped in silence.

Until then, the next time someone lectures you on Iran’s nuclear threat, ask them politely but firmly about the nuclear elephant in the desert.