85 seconds until midnight. That’s the time shown on the Doomsday Clock in January 2026, four seconds closer to catastrophe than just one year earlier. Yet, with the recent escalation in the Middle East, we may be even closer to the edge. The global stage is growing more perilous, driven by increasingly aggressive and nationalistic behaviors from nuclear powers.
Several flashpoints are emerging across the globe: Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, the continuing conflict in Palestine, and China’s firm stance on Taiwan, among others. But what has shifted is the arrival of the Trump administration. While in 2025, threats were mainly rhetorical and expressed through speeches and platforms like Truth Social, such as the 200% tariff on European wine or the attempted purchase of Greenland, in 2026, they have turned overtly aggressive. The abduction of Venezuelan President Maduro and joint strikes on Iran with Israel are just the beginning.
It increasingly appears that Trump’s administration is focusing on gaining control of key strategic regions: Venezuela, home to one of the world’s largest oil reserves; Iran, which controls the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil transit chokepoint; and Greenland, offering access to the Arctic with both military and commercial significance.
The “America First” motto has forced other nations to reconsider their alliances. Countries are turning away from the US, prioritizing other relationships or focusing inward. As a result, more government funds are being directed to military spending, especially for nuclear purposes, and the global tone has become much more assertive. Thus, we argue that Trump’s new mandate and recent global escalations have transformed the nuclear and alliances maps, pushing nuclear powers towards strategically opaque policies, significantly threatening the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the world’s stability.
So, will the clock strike midnight anytime soon? Probably not. But the current geopolitical climate makes it possible to redraw the nuclear map: something we haven’t had to do since 2006, when North Korea conducted its first nuclear test.
The Threatening Nuclear Domino Effect in Middle East
Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons introduced a significant asymmetry of power in the Middle East. Thanks to the NPT, the arms race in the region was effectively “postponed” for many countries. However, Israel’s nuclear capabilities have remained a persistent threat to its neighbors, especially fueling Iran’s and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA) drive to acquire a similar weapon.
Today, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict with Palestine, Israel’s nuclear arsenal carries significant weight on the global stage, influencing not only the military balance in the region but also shaping international positions on this deeply rooted conflict. Beyond the central issue, the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which also exacerbates the suffering of Palestinians, is further complicated by Israel’s nuclear deterrent, serving as quite a barrier to any substantial international intervention. The “support” of the US’s 5,277 nuclear warheads further tilts the scale, making it even more difficult for nations to take a firmer stand.
In essence, nuclear weapons act as a barrier, preventing the international community from taking decisive action on moral grounds. This dynamic was similarly evident when Putin invaded Ukraine, nuclear deterrence stifled any real, immediate response.
A little while ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran possessing nuclear weapons used to be considered hypothetical. Some argued it was impossible; others preferred to be prepared for the worst, assuming Iran had the potential to develop such an arsenal. With the attacks in 2026, we can now confidently say that Iran didn’t possess nuclear weapons, at least not at that time. However, what it does have is the potential to build them.
The White House boasted about destroying several nuclear facilities, but the truth is, we still don’t know how many there really are. Trump’s administration, staunchly opposed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), exited the deal in 2018, effectively opening the door for Iran to advance its nuclear program without much constraint. While Iran is still a signatory of the NPT, its repeated threats to leave the treaty signal growing risks. Without the JCPOA and with escalating tensions, particularly after U.S. and Israel’s aggressive actions against Iran, the only thing holding the Islamic Republic of Iran back from developing nuclear weapons is the NPT itself. If diplomatic relations continue to break down, and Iran feels increasingly threatened, its exit from the NPT could be imminent, bringing a dangerous new era of nuclear proliferation.
In short, what was once a distant possibility is now a looming reality. If we once had a chance to contain Iran’s pursuit of such a devastating weapon, that window has likely closed.
However, what makes the situation in the Middle East even more concerning is the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement Pakistan signed with the KSA in September 2025.
Saudi Arabia has steadily become a more prominent player in international affairs, and this new agreement raises an important question: Will Saudi Arabia acquire nuclear weapons through its new ally?
The agreement stipulates that an aggression against one would be considered an aggression against both, and it also outlines cooperation in various aspects of defense and deterrence. When Reuters journalists inquired about the possibility of a nuclear umbrella under this alliance, it was confirmed by a senior Saudi official that: “This is a comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means”, which raises significant concerns about nuclear proliferation. This is particularly alarming as Pakistan used to be primarily focused on India, has not signed the NPT, and has shown no interest in adopting the No-First-Use policy. It leaves the door open for further nuclear escalation in the near future, especially in the Middle East.
Europe’s Nuclear Rebalance: France and the UK Step Up as U.S. Retreats and Russia Rises
It is commonly known that Russia possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with 5,459 warheads as of early 2025. This positions Putin in a favorable negotiating stance when advancing Russian interests. What keeps Russia from further advancing into Europe, however, is NATO and its nuclear powers, three of which are sheltered under the alliance’s defense umbrella.
That said, Trump’s increasing detachment from NATO weakened the alliance, particularly during his second term. While NATO regained significance after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Trump’s growing distance from the organization undermined its unity and strength at a crucial moment. Trump’s approach also could provide Putin with tacit encouragement to continue pursuing his longstanding goal: restoring Russia to its historical “rightful” place; a thinly veiled ambition to revive the Russian Empire. But how can Putin be stopped if Trump interferes in national matters, such as the Maduro case? What holds Putin back from annexing former Russian Empire territories under the Russian flag?
The Kremlin has been clear about its willingness to use nuclear weapons if Russian territories or interests are threatened. This nuclear threat has become more pronounced than ever before, which explains why NATO’s nuclear powers have now shifted their nuclear deterrence rhetoric.
Since acquiring nuclear weapons, France has consistently positioned itself as a “Force de dissuasion”: a power of deterrence, focused solely on defense. For nearly two decades and under three presidents, the country adhered to keeping its nuclear warheads below 300, prioritizing the optimization and modernization of its systems and technology rather than increasing its nuclear stockpile.
However, on March 2, 2026, President Macron delivered a pivotal speech. Standing before a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, in a quietly threatening and powerful manner, he unveiled a new strategic vision for France’s deterrence: a “forward deterrence” aimed at bolstering Europe’s security in light of growing uncertainties about America’s commitment to NATO and rising international threats.
Though France remains committed to non-proliferation, Macron declared that the country would increase its nuclear arsenal in the coming years, reiterating its deterrence strategy with a more advanced edge. This marked a departure from France’s historically transparent stance on nuclear matters, ushering in a period of strategic opacity. This shift truly signals the dawn of a new, more precarious and unpredictable era; one that undeniably brings the world closer to midnight on the Doomsday Clock.
Regarding France’s closest nuclear neighbor, the United Kingdom has also adopted a “deterrence first” stance, though it deliberately maintains ambiguity by not offering a NFU assurance. However, with the Northwood Declaration of July 2025, the UK and France reached a bilateral agreement on nuclear deterrence cooperation, marking the first step toward policy coordination in this domain. This agreement was intended to reassure NATO and European allies, particularly as Trump’s withdrawal from international commitments created growing uncertainties.
This new layer of protection proved invaluable in 2026 and will hopefully endure, as it can still coexist with France’s updated deterrence stance and the planned increase in both countries’ nuclear warheads.
Asia’s Silent Nuclear Build-Up: Capitalizing on Global Instability and U.S. Detachment
In 2024, China reaffirmed its NFU nuclear doctrine but continues to rapidly expand its arsenal, now exceeding 600 warheads and targeting 1,000 by 2030. While China follows a defensive nuclear strategy similar to European powers, this expansion likely reflects an underlying goal, to deter the US from intervening in its primary objective: Taiwan.
China has been unequivocal in its intentions, especially since the publication of the 2022 “White Paper,” where it explicitly stated: “Resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation.” This rhetoric mirrors Russia’s justification for its invasion of Ukraine, and China’s firm stance: “We are one China, and Taiwan is part of China. This is an indisputable fact supported by history and law. Taiwan has never been a state; its status as part of China is unalterable. Any attempt to distort these facts and dispute or deny the one-China principle will end in failure”, truly suggests an ulterior motive to its nuclear progress.
Given this, China’s expanding nuclear arsenal could become as significant as Israel’s and Russia’s in their respective conflicts, particularly in the event of a potential invasion of Taiwan. This development raises considerable global concerns, particularly in light of the increasingly assertive behavior from Russia, Israel, Iran, and the U.S., which could provide China with the space to adopt similar tactics.
Now, as India’s nuclear doctrine is based on “credible minimum deterrence” primarily aimed at its neighboring threats: China and Pakistan, it has now more reasons to significantly increase its arsenal, in reaction to its historical rivals. While India may not pose a direct threat to other countries, its nuclear arsenal could become a concern, especially if Indian national interests are threatened. The recent alliance between Pakistan and the KSA has dealt a blow to India’s diplomatic standing, pushing it into a more defensive posture. In the context of the Arms Race, this new alliance, escalating tensions with Pakistan, and China’s nuclear objectives, India could be driven to expand its nuclear arsenal, raising the risk of further escalation and nuclear proliferation in Asia. Even though India has adhered to the NFU policy, it remains outside the NPT. Its nuclear capabilities, along with its position in the realignment of alliances, warrant careful attention. Will India seek new alliances, or turn inward for self-reliance?
In this era, it may seem strange to say that North Korea has one of the most predictable nuclear postures among all nuclear powers. Its focus remains squarely on nuclear development, aiming directly at its long-time nemesis, South Korea. Since Kim Jong-Un’s rise to power in 2011, North Korea has been steadily increasing its nuclear stockpile. While it remains relatively small (around 50 warheads) compared to other nuclear states, this still represents a significant and growing threat that cannot be ignored, especially with the potential emergence of an Arms Race in the Asian region.
Despite Trump’s attempts to bring Pyongyang and Washington to the negotiating table, relations have remained deeply strained. The situation with Seoul is similarly distant, especially after the last South Korean president’s term. However, the election of Lee Jae-myung in June 2025 offers a glimmer of hope, as he has expressed a desire for peaceful coexistence with the North. However, North Korea remains secluded, in China’s shadow, with the least constraints in nuclear weapons utilization and proliferation.
But questions remain: With the growing arsenals of both North Korea and China, and the ongoing distancing from the Trump administration, how will other Asian countries react? Will the NPT still hold the world back from plunging into a new and active nuclear era?
Conclusion
The consequences of Trump’s policies, coupled with ongoing global escalations, have significantly reshaped the nuclear and alliance maps. His detachment from several global agreements, including the JCPOA and NATO, has pushed nations toward increasingly opaque nuclear strategies, threatening both the NPT and global stability.
In the Middle East, rising tensions, and new alliances, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement, are exacerbating the risk of nuclear proliferation, not only in the region but globally. In Asia, China’s expanding nuclear arsenal, India’s defensive posture, and North Korea’s uncertainty are reshaping the regional security environment. In Europe, France and the UK are asserting a stronger nuclear deterrence, responding to America’s distancing from NATO and Russia’s growing threat.
Meanwhile, non-nuclear states continue to push for disarmament, they now paradoxically cling to nuclear umbrellas for security, creating a new ‘game of alliance’ that echoes the fragile coalitions of pre-World War settings, where the pursuit of protection sowed the seeds of conflict.
The once-stable nuclear order appears to be crumbling. The arms race is accelerating, and the NPT is under unprecedented pressure. As nations adjust their nuclear strategies in response to global instability, the world finds itself on the brink of a new and dangerous nuclear era.
