Inside Iran's nuclear dilemma- What lessons did it learn from Iraq and Libya?

In 2003, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi gave up the nation's decade-old nuclear programme in exchange for normalisation with the West and lifting of US sanctions, but in 2011, he was dragged through the streets in the civil war as NATO forces encircled the air in Libya. Post-Gaddafi Libya turned to anarchy, extremism, and eventually collapsed.

Nearly a decade before that, Saddam Hussein was forced to relinquish his Weapons of Mass Destruction; however, in 2003, Bush administration went with tanks rolling into Baghdad on false WMD pretences and within days, his regime collapsed.

These precedents loom large over Iran

Israel on June 13 launched a preemptive strike, which it calls “Operation Rising Lion”, unleashing waves of air attacks and supported by Mossad-backed sabotage across 100 nuclear and military sites in Iran. The strikes reportedly killed Iran's Revolutionary Guard commander Hossein Salami, the chief of the Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri, and several nuclear scientists, while Iran launched more than 100 drones in retaliation.

The strike reportedly hit Natnaz nuclear site, although the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed no immediate radiation leaks, but global alarms have sounded.

Iran has reportedly come closer than ever to enriching its Uranium stockpile to 90 per cent, this had agitated Israel, which perceives Iran as an existential threat and used this argument to justify its strike in Iran. The US government has denied its involvement in the attacks; however, it confirmed that it was informed about Israel's intentions of carrying out the attack. It has repeatedly warned Iran that any attack on US personnel and infrastructure will lead to escalation.

Diplomacy at the crossroads

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that Iran can't have a nuclear bomb. “… We are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see. There are several people in leadership that will not be coming back,” said Donald Trump. The sixth round of talks between the US and Iran is scheduled on June 15 in Oman. It was supposedly a critical opportunity to de-escalate Iran's nuclear ambitions, in exchange for limited sanction relief and dialogue in the region.

On June 12, the IAEA's board formally censured Iran first time in two decades, as it has failed to explain “undeclared nuclear material and activities” in multiple nuclear facilities. According to IAEA reports, Iran has increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade material by at least 50 per cent since February.

In response to the censure, Iran has announced a new secret enrichment site and more advanced centrifuges, hinting at a possible withdrawal from IAEA commitments.

Some analysts say these strikes might backfire; Iran now has every reason to go nuclear, not just to build the bomb, but to show that they won't be bullied into submission.

The US strongly opposes Iran’s nuclear arms potential; supports diplomacy, but is preparing for conflict if needed. The EU believes that Iran is breaching its nuclear agreement, but wants diplomacy and to seal off sanctions.

Between history and hypocrisy

When Muammar Gaddafi was being ousted, it was not for security reasons that NATO forces invaded Libya. Inspired by the Arab Spring, protests erupted in Libya against Gaddafi's 42-year rule. Gaddafi violently quashed the rebels. NATO forces took legal authorisation from the United Nations to protect civilians in Libya, basically legalising military intervention. It coordinated with rebel forces to overthrow Gaddafi. Gaddafi tried using Libya's voluntary disarmament to convince NATO to cease its operations. But it didn't help. Gaddafi's son, Saif and others in Libya's government expressed their regret over nuclear disarmament. The U.S., U.K., France, and allies took the lead in bombing Gaddafi’s forces. After the death of Gaddafi, Libya descended into chaos. NATO had no plans for post-Gaddafi Libya.

Similarly, in Iraq, after the 1991 Gulf War, under the restrictions from the IAEA and United Nations Special Commission, Nuclear Weapons were dismantled. There was no proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction when the United States tanks were in Baghdad. Till now, in 2025, the US has not provided any evidence that justifies the invasion of Iraq. The nuclear claim became the central failure of US intelligence and the justification for a war that led to Iraq’s collapse.

The cases of Iraq and Libya remain a powerful argument for Iran; those who surrender have faced the destruction of their regime. Iran itself had witnessed a democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, overthrown by the CIA- and MI6-backed coup. "Operation Ajax" installed a monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to protect the oil interests of the US and the UK. This must have been embedded in the historical memory of the Iranian people, which later moved to theocracy following the Islamic revolution. These memories of Iran, along with the mistrust of President Trump walking away from the deal in 2018, have given Iran every reason to pursue nuclear weapons, not just as a deterrence but as an insurance.

Iran faces a somewhat similar situation to Iraq and Libya, even if it agrees to nuclear disarmament and transparency, it will not guarantee Iran protection from regime change, sanctions or a military coup. In contrast, North Korea is still standing firm under the immense pressure from the US and the EU despite not agreeing to disarmament. But if Iran continues with its nuclear enrichment programme, it will have to face these pre-emptive strikes.

As the US President Trump puts it aptly, “The United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World and Israel has a lot of it...And they know how to use it.”