Andrei Sakharov, a nuclear scientist and chief designer of the Soviet nuclear bomb, had the courage to write Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom in 1968, which he wrote in the traditional sense. It was not published, but was circulated in underground networks (samizdat). It dealt with global threats such as thermonuclear war, famine, ecological catastrophe, and despotism. He believed that the ideologies of communism and capitalism could somehow coexist, which he called “convergence.”
He never expected that religious “fundamentalism” would rise again to such an extent in the 21st century that some states would have a singular belief that their faith is the only true faith. I didn’t even do it. Such states, armed with nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons of mass destruction, could threaten the imperfect balance that has kept us from mutual destruction. In 2025, the theocracy’s possession or potential possession of nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons is one of the most complex challenges facing the international community.
Nuclear states and theological considerations
The term “theocracy” refers to a form of government in which religious institutions or religious doctrines are the ultimate source of authority. Theocratic governments typically operate on different assumptions and motivations than secular governments, making traditional diplomatic and deterrence strategies less effective against them.
There are three basic types of governance here. (i) A secular state is a state without an explicit religion, although in some countries the veil of secularism is thin. (ii) Theocracy. Either a religious clergy rules, a religious organization or doctrine is the ultimate source of authority, or the government explicitly imposes policies that serve religious purposes. (iii) A non-religious state where those in power actively suppress and guide religious practices.
Examples of countries that are classified as theocratic states, have nuclear capabilities, and rely on religious beliefs to inform their political and military strategies include:
Pakistan: Its constitution establishes Islam as the state religion. It possesses approximately 170 nuclear warheads and is not a party to either the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) or the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
India: According to the constitution, India is not explicitly a Hindu country, but its provisions can be interpreted as such, and current leaders are reinforcing Hindu supremacy. It is reasonable to classify it as a religious state. Although it has possessed nuclear weapons since 1974 and has approximately 164 nuclear warheads, it is not a member of the NPT or CTBT.
Iran: Officially the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is ruled by Shia Muslim clerics. Despite statements by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Israel has developed the potential to produce nuclear weapons and publicly considers it an illegitimate state. It is a signatory to the NPT and CTBT.
Israel: Although the Basic Law is not a formal constitution, it has much in common with a constitution. Founded as the homeland of the Jewish people, it is now arguably a de facto religious state, with its governance and legal system actively supporting what is de facto the state religion. It is estimated to carry approximately 90 nuclear warheads. It has signed the CTBT, but not the NPT.
As for non-theocratic nuclear powers, perhaps traditional nuclear superpowers, the United States, Russia, and China, which have thousands of nuclear warheads, will not use nuclear weapons, even in a limited way. The concept of “mutually assured destruction” remains at the heart of the superpower nuclear doctrine of the United States and Russia, and will probably apply de facto to India and Pakistan, as well as China. Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s belligerent speeches, Russia is unlikely to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but other options such as hypersonic cruise missiles that can be used with or without nuclear weapons There is also.
Another potentially high-risk situation is that the international community, particularly Israel, has vowed to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Before that happens, and when it does happen, the reaction is unpredictable and frightening for everyone.
Impact on traditional diplomacy
Although the Obama administration reached a nuclear deal with Iran, some traditional deal negotiations with non-believers are impossible or very difficult when a government derives its authority from religious doctrines and beliefs. Of course, this is nothing new, in fact it has been a factor for much of human history. The difference is that weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, are increasingly available to people who believe they are serving a higher calling, are just, and are empowered by a supreme being. It’s about being there. Consider what has changed and what remains important when dealing with such state theocracies (and the proliferation of non-state actors with increasing access to unconventional weapons of mass destruction). Please.
Deterrence and security: The possession of nuclear weapons changes the traditional diplomatic calculus. As mentioned above, in the past the specter of mutually assured destruction played an important role in strategic negotiations.
Trust: New entrants to the nuclear club are likely to have doubts about whether they will abide by potential bilateral or multilateral agreements (Iran certainly complied with the nuclear deal, but the U.S. discarded). Additional efforts are needed to build the necessary trust, transparency, and confidence-building measures, which are difficult to achieve.
Dependence on institutional frameworks: Existing multilateral frameworks, such as arms control treaties, require continuous negotiation, adaptation, and testing, and can be anathema to theocracies.
Various skills that emphasize effective diplomacy with theocratic nations
When religious factors predominate, traditional diplomatic tools require new or honed skill sets.
Cultural competency: Understanding the religious and historical narratives that shape national identity and government policies and decisions.
Crisis Management Techniques: Inciting events, whether domestic or international, can affect high-stakes negotiations and make it difficult to defuse situations that could lead to conflict.
Approach to negotiation: The style and content of the agreement requires drafting skills that provide language that is acceptable to both traditional and theological perspectives.
Fine-tuning your communication: Sensitivity to religious sentiments and dimensions requires the right pitch, if not near perfection, both in tone and in your suggestions.
Related article: NATO and Putin’s nuclear threat | Learning from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The path to nuclear disarmament
Revised or new bilateral or multilateral agreements
Nuclear non-proliferation: Strengthening agreements such as the NPT with additional protocols specific to the theological contexts of some member states.
Regional security agreements: Another path would be to revise or create new agreements that focus on mutual security. Particularly in regions with multiple nuclear powers, such as South Asia and parts of the Middle East, where Israel already has nuclear weapons (Iran is nearby, and Saudi Arabia would probably want one as well).
Cultural exchange initiatives: Credible efforts can strengthen the negotiating environment by promoting cross-cultural dialogue and understanding between nuclear-weapon states through interreligious programs and cultural diplomacy.
Arms control treaties: Expanding treaties designed to take into account theological concerns can be a path to disarmament based on shared values.
It would be a mistake to focus solely on nuclear threats when other options exist for states and non-state actors to acquire non-conventional weapons. However, the same point applies to other potential weapons of mass destruction.
International community reaction
Theocratic states that possess or aspire to possess nuclear weapons face complex and multifaceted challenges given today’s geopolitical environment. That said, some believe that providing aid to nuclear power development is the best way forward, while at the same time risking that the resulting uranium and technology could ease the path to nuclear weapons. Some people think there is.
The World Nuclear Association states:
“Civil nuclear power generation has never been the source of or a pathway to nuclear weapons in any country with nuclear weapons, and uranium traded for electricity production has been diverted to military use. Not at all, as North Korea recently demonstrated. The nuclear weapons program preceded, or was independent of, civil nuclear power; the withdrawal from nuclear power led to nuclear weapons, since only 5 tons of natural uranium are needed to make a nuclear weapon. There is no possibility of containing the spread.”
With access to uranium and nuclear weapons technology becoming increasingly available, there is no denying that the international community needs to consider a range of innovative and multifaceted approaches. These include:
Sanctions and incentives: Economic sanctions can pressure theocratic regimes to comply with international norms. However, sanctions alone are often insufficient and can have unintended consequences, such as harming or antagonizing civilians in sanctioned countries.
Integration into the world economy: Greater integration of theocratic regimes into the world economy may create interdependence that makes aggressive actions, including the use of nuclear weapons, less likely. Promoting economic relations and providing trade and investment opportunities can foster greater stability and cooperation.
Strengthening international norms and legal accountability: Multi-participant diplomatic efforts can be an avenue to building consensus and support for non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. Holding theocratic regimes accountable for violations of international law may be another way to deter aggressive behavior.
Humanitarian advocacy: Emphasizing the devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear war can build public political support for disarmament efforts. For example, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movements call for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons from a humanitarian standpoint.
Supporting civil society: Empowering civil society organizations and grassroots movements can amplify voices advocating for disarmament and non-proliferation. These groups can play an important role in raising awareness and mobilizing public opinion.
Successfully engaging a theocratic state with the international community to avert a nuclear holocaust will be an extremely difficult task. Failure to do so would mean global anarchy, and perhaps massive global destruction.
** **
Richard Cooper contributed to this article.
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed here by the author are his or her own and not those of the author. impactor.com — In cover photo: U.S. nuclear weapons test, Nevada, 1951. Cover photo credit: U.S. Government/International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
