Why Should the World Worry More About Iran’s Nuclear Potential Than North Korea’s Arsenal?
By Mayasa Albawi April 25, 2026
Nuclear power occupies a paradoxical position in global politics: it can function as a stabilizing deterrent, yet it also holds the capacity for unprecedented destruction. As nuclear capabilities spread or remain contested, the challenge of proliferation continues to shape international security debates. However, not all nuclear cases generate the same level—or type—of concern. Among contemporary cases, Iran’s nuclear trajectory stands out. This article argues that a nuclear-armed Iran could pose a uniquely destabilizing threat to the global order—potentially exceeding the risks associated with North Korea—due to its regional strategy, methods of influence, and geopolitical context. A central concern lies in Iran’s approach to regional power projection. Unlike states that rely primarily on conventional military force or formal diplomacy, Iran has developed a sustained strategy of cultivating non-state actors aligned with its ideological and political objectives. Through financial support, military training, and logistical coordination, Iran has extended its influence across multiple countries, including Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. These relationships are not merely symbolic; they have played decisive roles in shaping political and military developments across the region. Groups such as Hezbollah, the Houthi movement, and the Popular Mobilization Forces exemplify how Iran projects power indirectly. These actors do not function as isolated entities but rather as components of a broader regional strategy, often operating in conflicts that extend beyond national boundaries. Rather than relying on ambiguity or denial, Iran has frequently portrayed these groups as allies and legitimate partners, openly emphasizing ideological alignment and mutual support. In this sense, these networks serve as instruments of leverage in Iran’s foreign policy, enabling it to exert pressure on rival states and influence regional dynamics through coordinated political and military engagement. The consistent reliance on such actors underscores a strategic preference for indirect but highly integrated forms of power projection alongside conventional state-to-state relations. When considered alongside the possibility of nuclear capability, this pattern raises significant concerns. A nuclear-armed Iran could feel emboldened to intensify its existing strategies, using nuclear deterrence as a protective shield under which proxy activities could expand. The combination of nuclear weapons and decentralized regional influence introduces a volatile dynamic, increasing the risk of miscalculation, escalation, and multi-actor conflict.
This perception is further reinforced by statements attributed to senior Iranian officials. For example, remarks about Iran’s regional reach have been linked to Heydar Moslehi, who was reported in 2015 to have suggested that Iran controls four Arab capitals. Similarly, Ali Younesi—a senior adviser to President Hassan Rouhani—was widely cited in 2015 as describing Iran as an “empire,” with Baghdad portrayed as its capital. While such statements have at times been disputed or interpreted differently, their circulation in political and media discourse has contributed to a broader perception of Iran as seeking an expanded regional role. Taken together, both reported rhetoric and observable actions on the ground point toward an ambition—whether strategic or perceived—to shape the regional order in its favor. Geography further intensifies these risks. Iran is located at the heart of the Middle East, one of the most volatile and strategically significant regions globally. A nuclear-armed Iran could set off a chain reaction of proliferation, as regional rivals such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey may feel compelled to develop their own nuclear capabilities in an effort to counterbalance Iran’s expanding regional influence. This dynamic would not only heighten security competition but also fundamentally destabilize the regional order. By contrast, although North Korea’s nuclear program remains a serious threat, its consequences have so far been largely contained within East Asia and have not triggered a comparable regional nuclear arms race on the same scale or intensity. Moreover, this strategic relevance becomes particularly evident in Iran’s conduct around the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, through which a substantial share of global oil supply passes. Iran’s repeated involvement in naval confrontations, harassment of commercial shipping, and reported use of sea mines have raised serious concerns about a pattern of deliberate brinkmanship aimed at exploiting this vulnerability in the global system. Rather than isolated incidents, such actions are often interpreted as part of a calculated strategy to weaponize geography by positioning itself as a gatekeeper capable of disrupting international trade in response to external pressures such as sanctions, including signaling the possibility of imposing transit restrictions or economic costs on passing vessels. Critics view this as coercive leverage designed to extract political and economic concessions. If combined with nuclear capability, this approach could become significantly more dangerous, enabling Iran to operate under the shield of nuclear deterrence while exerting greater pressure on critical global infrastructure and reshaping regional power dynamics. Beyond maritime tensions, Iran’s involvement in regional conflicts has also contributed to instability. Through both direct and indirect means, Iran has been linked to attacks or military activities affecting neighboring countries. Whether through missile strikes, drone operations, or the actions of aligned groups, these incidents have intensified regional insecurity and demonstrated Iran’s willingness to engage in escalation as a strategic tool. This pattern reinforces concerns about how such behavior might evolve if combined with nuclear capability.
The distinction between Iran and North Korea lies not only in nuclear capability but also in the strategic environments and underlying motivations that shape their behavior—and it is in this context that Iran presents the more acute and far-reaching threat. North Korea, while undeniably dangerous, remains a largely contained and comparatively predictable nuclear actor, with actions primarily driven by regime survival and deterrence within a limited geopolitical scope. Iran, by contrast, operates at the center of one of the world’s most volatile and interconnected regions, where overlapping conflicts and external powers are deeply entangled, and where its actions are increasingly interpreted as part of a broader ambition to expand influence and reshape the regional order. Iran’s nuclear trajectory remains one of the most consequential issues in contemporary geopolitics. A potential nuclear capability could function not only as a deterrent but also as a protective shield for expanding regional influence through aligned non-state actors, increasing the likelihood of more assertive behavior under reduced fear of retaliation. Unlike more contained nuclear cases, including North Korea, Iran’s combination of regional reach, proxy networks, and strategic pressure tactics means that nuclearization could more easily translate into wider proliferation risks, intensified asymmetric conflicts under a nuclear umbrella, and further erosion of already fragile non-proliferation norms. It is this interaction between nuclear capability and an active, multi-layered regional strategy that makes Iran’s case particularly dangerous compared to other nuclear-armed states. As a result, Iran’s nuclear trajectory remains one of the most consequential issues in contemporary geopolitics. Addressing it requires not only technical agreements and monitoring mechanisms, but also a broader understanding of regional dynamics and strategic behavior. Without such an approach, the risks associated with nuclear proliferation in the Middle East may extend far beyond the region itself, with implications for global stability.
