With Assad gone, will Iran race for a nuclear bomb?

The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad's government marks a watershed moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics, closing over five decades of Assad family dominance in Syria.
Driving the news

The fall of Assad’s regime presents a profound challenge for Iran, striking at the heart of its regional strategy and weakening its “Axis of Resistance.” Syria, long a critical conduit for Iranian arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, is now a lost link in this chain. As Iran recalibrates its position, the regime may face an existential question: Should it pursue a nuclear weapon as a hedge against further losses and as a tool to reassert its regional influence?
"And will the Iranians — weakened by the loss of Hamas and Hezbollah, and now Mr al-Assad — conclude that their best path is to open a new negotiation with Mr Trump, only months after sending hit men to kill him? Or, alternatively, will they race for a nuclear bomb, the weapon some Iranians view as their last line of defense in a new era of vulnerability," asked an article in the New York Times.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are not new, but the current situation could provide a powerful impetus to accelerate its program. The dramatic weakening of Tehran’s allies—first Hamas in Gaza, then Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now Assad in Syria—has left the regime vulnerable. Without its traditional proxies and strategic depth, Iran’s deterrent capability in the region is significantly diminished. In this context, a nuclear weapon may appear to Iran’s leadership as the ultimate guarantor of its survival and influence.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently warned of a “dramatic acceleration” in Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities, with Tehran already possessing enough material to potentially construct several bombs. While building a deliverable warhead could take over a year, the technical and geopolitical will to do so may now intensify. For Iran, the prospect of a nuclear weapon would serve not only as a deterrent against regional rivals like Israel and Saudi Arabia but also as a counterbalance to the US and its allies. However, pursuing this path risks further international isolation and the potential for preemptive strikes by adversaries.
Should Iran decide to expedite its nuclear ambitions, the move would likely inflame tensions in an already volatile region. Israel, which has demonstrated a willingness to carry out preemptive strikes against Iranian facilities, might respond aggressively. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, already alarmed by Tehran’s behavior, could seek nuclear capabilities of their own, sparking a dangerous arms race in the Middle East.
For the international community, Iran’s potential shift toward nuclear weapons development represents a critical test. Western powers, particularly the US, would face tough decisions on how to respond—through diplomacy, economic sanctions, or even military action. President-elect Donald Trump, poised to take office in just weeks, has previously adopted a hardline stance on Iran, leaving little room for compromise. Meanwhile, Tehran must weigh the immense risks of pursuing a nuclear arsenal against the perceived benefits of securing its geopolitical position.
If Iran accelerates its nuclear program, the ripple effects could be felt far beyond the Middle East. Global oil markets, already sensitive to disruptions, could face severe shocks if tensions escalate, particularly given the vulnerability of energy infrastructure in the Gulf. Additionally, the destabilization of Syria and the broader region might push Iran into deeper conflict with its adversaries, creating new fronts of violence in a region already ravaged by war.
For Iran’s leadership, the stakes could not be higher. While a nuclear weapon might offer strategic advantages, it also risks provoking a united international front against Tehran.
(With inputs from agencies)