President Trump's announcement to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran is probably one of the greatest possibilities for achieving a balance of powers in the Middle East. The withdraw of the United States from an agreement that aims to stop the Iranian intentions of owning a nuclear weapon is good news, but probably not good for those who celebrate it today. A nuclear Iran is, almost certainly, the best possible scenario.
Both President Obama and the current president agrees on the need for Iran to refrain from developing nuclear weapons as a requirement for the maintenance of peace, according to both Iran has not proved to be responsible enough to be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. However, history has shown that countries that have achieved capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, with one exception, have reduced their bellicosity, have been more prudent in their involvement in international conflicts and have reached more durable agreements between its neighbors.
India, for example, has had nuclear weapons since 1974 when it tested its bomb called "The Smiling Buddha", which cost it a cut of the supply of nuclear material by its Canadian suppliers but it was not until 1998 that it was formally considered a country with nuclear weapons with the implementation of Operation Shakti. His rival, Pakistan, who at the time tested his Chagai-1, the tensions war by the border region of Kashmir continue, however such tensions have not come to escalate and a nuclear confrontation between both powers is not expected.
North Korea is another example that we can highlight, were it not for the nuclear demonstration by Pyongyang, we could hardly face the current climate of talks between the leaders of both sides of the 38th parallel and the scope of a peaceful resolution on the horizon.
On the other hand, the denuclearization of the Middle East has not brought any advantage for peace, the tensions continue on several fronts: Palestine, Syria, Kurdistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen are facing problems that go beyond national borders and that do not have a visible solution.
Although the Israeli government has not affirmed or denied the possession of nuclear weapons, there is a consensus among specialists and even in the International Atomic Energy Association that this country has manufactured nuclear weapons and is even estimated to have conducted tests in conjunction with South Africa, this would make it the only state in the region with such capacity, which could be behind the offensive, disrespectful and warlike character that Tel-Aviv maintains as a state policy.
A nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran, would generate a situation of balance in the region, which would diminish the warlike appetites of Israel and encourage the latter to make public its nuclear program, which will diminish the aggressive impulses of certain Iranian sectors that intend to use the bomb in the region.
The technology of nuclear weapons is expensive in terms of money, natural resources and man-hours. So far no country with a nuclear war capacity to trade with this technology and we have no reason to think that Iran would be the first, so the fears of proliferation or allow the use of these weapons by terrorist groups has no justification.