Iran’s MENARA Proposal: Can Nuclear Cooperation Replace Rivalry and Reshape the Middle East’s Future?

Just as Euratom turned Europe’s nuclear rivalry into cooperation, MENARA could reshape the Middle East’s nuclear landscape. Its fate, however, depends on whether leaders choose dialogue over rivalry or repeat the Atom for Peace paradox, where promise turned into peril.

In a region often overshadowed by mistrust and nuclear anxieties, a bold beacon of cooperation emerges-the Middle East Network for Atomic Research and Advancement (MENARA), recently put forth by former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. More than an acronym, it is a vision of a framework for peaceful civil nuclear collaboration comprising the Middle East and North Africa based on mutual oversight and the collective pursuit of technology.

The MENARA proposal is not an entirely unprecedented Iranian initiative. As early as 1974, Iran tabled a resolution at the United Nations calling for the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (MENWFZ). Egypt quickly endorsed the initiative, and the resolution sailed through the UN General Assembly with overwhelming support.

Yet, half a century later, the vision remains unrealized, held back by Israel and the United States. Israel, in particular, has viewed its nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Arab nations, insisting that such a zone could be achieved only through multilateral negotiation and not by UN resolutions.

Today, Iran is reviving the concept in the wake of the recent US-Israel bombing campaign targeting its nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Beyond reacting to military pressure, Tehran is also attempting to reframe its image, from a security threat to a regional partner. MENARA initiative is a pivotal move, which shall not only enable Iran to emerge as a dominant power but could also help restructure the nuclear debate in the Middle East. By legitimizing peaceful nuclear energy, it could open doors to sustainable development, reduce dependence on external security arrangements, and foster regional integration through science diplomacy. In doing so, it links disarmament with climate goals, advancing a narrative of cooperation over confrontation.

Diplomatic Hurdles in Nuclear Relations

The Middle East’s nuclear diplomacy is often shaped by an entrenched web of geopolitical rivalries and asymmetrical security postures. Bilateral tensions have created sharp divides that seem difficult to bridge. A key example is Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity (the “Amimut” doctrine), under which it neither confirms nor denies its nuclear arsenal. This strategy helps Israel avoid international sanctions and prevents Arab states from demanding equal nuclear capabilities in the name of deterrence. However, it also remains a major obstacle to regional disarmament.

Another defining factor is the long-standing Saudi-Iran rivalry, rooted in competing visions for regional hegemony. This rivalry has eroded trust in diplomacy and raised doubts about Iran’s nuclear proposals—whether they are meant for cooperation or for domination. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia itself has its own nuclear ambitions and is developing a civil nuclear program with the help of the US and China.

Washington’s 2018 withdrawal from nuclear negotiations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran and EU3+3 nations, and reimposition of sanctions, has further deepened the perception of diplomatic unreliability in the Middle East.

As a result, the region remains trapped in a classic security dilemma where one state’s defensive measures are often perceived as an offensive threat, prompting others to accelerate their own armament program. Ongoing conflict in Libya, persistent instability in Iraq, and unresolved tensions in Lebanon intensify the volatility, leaving trust in short supply.

Without trust, even the most carefully designed cooperative nuclear frameworks struggle to survive. Initiatives often wither before they take root, casting serious doubt on the long-term viability of nuclear diplomacy in the Middle East.

Great Power Interferences and Other Factors

The 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference is often regarded as a turning point in global non-proliferation diplomacy. It made the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permanent and strengthened its review mechanism. It also adopted a resolution on the Middle East that linked the NPT’s indefinite extension to the creation of a verifiable weapon-free zone, including restrictions on delivery systems. However, the resolution lacked disarmament deadlines and real regional progress, making it more about preserving security than ensuring equity.

Subsequent attempts made in 2010, 2019, and 2022 to reschedule the conferences were derailed by great powers because they refused to support draft consensus documents. This reflects a broader pattern, where great powers dominate nuclear regimes, such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the IAEA, and the NPT, retaining control over which states can access sensitive atomic technology. Such gatekeeping turns nuclear diplomacy into a tool for power projection rather than cooperation.

Also Read: TICAD 9: Japan’s Smart Power Push in Africa

The efforts to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East are obstructed for two reasons. First, great powers resist the initiatives that could weaken their allies or strengthen their rivals. Second, Western powers exploit regional divisions to maintain influence over oil pricing and supply chains, thereby ensuring that no single state dominates this strategically important region.

Apart from it, internal disturbances compound these barriers. Middle Eastern leaders prioritize regime security and often compete to be seen as the region’s dominant power, making them unwilling to cede sovereignty to a common nuclear authority. Deep sectarian divides between Shia and Sunni populations, along with stark economic inequalities, further undermine prospects for cooperation.

Geopolitical conflicts intensify the problem. Proxy wars in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—where states support non-state actors against rivals- have weakened regional security institutions. As a result, efforts toward building a cooperative and credible nuclear-free zone in the Middle East remain stalled.

MENARA – THE PATHWAY TO NUCLEAR HARMONY

Civil nuclear diplomacy transforms atomic energy into a tool for development, cooperation, and peaceful progress under international safeguards. In the early 1990s, regional arms control and security talks in the Middle East even proposed a communication network, called a “warm line,” as a first step towards a crisis management “hotline” between the neighbours.

Currently, six Middle Eastern countries are either operating or building nuclear power plants, with a total of 23 reactors under development. These projects aim to diversify energy supplies, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and support water desalination. The Arab Atomic Energy Agency (AAEA), created in 1989 with 14 member states, coordinates and plans the development of safe and sustainable use of nuclear technology. Another milestone was the opening of SESAME in Jordan in 2017, a synchrotron research facility that serves as a regional training hub.

Globally, nuclear power provides about 10% of electricity, according to the IAEA. To reach net-zero targets by 2050, this share must expand without undermining non-proliferation safeguards. Tools such as the IAEA’s Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) and the Additional Protocol (AP) ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted for non-peaceful purposes. These principles echo MENARA’s vision of cost-effective, peaceful nuclear cooperation. By standardizing safety protocols across the Gulf and Levant, MENARA could help promote nuclear desalination to address chronic water scarcity and foster regional dialogue through technical cooperation.

Regional treaties across the globe, such as treaty of Pelindaba (Africa), Semipalatinsk (Central Asia) and Tlateloco (Latin America and Caribbean), illustrate how Nuclear Weapon Free Zones(NWFZ) can balance disarmament with peaceful nuclear development.

For MENARA, however, success will depend on trust before technology. It has to ensure transparent verification, equitable technology access, and political will to evolve into a constructive framework. Further, strengthening of existing institutions such as the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League shall ensure collective security and a shared responsibility towards the creation of a productive zone.

Implications for India

More than a distant regional initiative, India views MENERA as a proposal with strategic, economic, and technological implications. With its largest diaspora in the Gulf, India also enjoys strong cultural and diplomatic ties that serve as a tool of soft power.

On the positive side, MENARA could open doors for trilateral cooperation between India, the Gulf states and global agencies. This would unlock opportunities in nuclear safety, research and development and nuclear-backed desalination technology

Economically, India’s reliance on crude oil imports from the GCC alone accounts for 35%. The Gulf’s gradual shift from oil to nuclear energy would force India to recalibrate its energy import strategies.

Since India’s trade, remittances, and food security are closely tied to West Asian stability, MENARA also presents an opportunity. By investing in training programs and technical cooperation, India can not only safeguard its interests but also strengthen its regional role.

The Future Trajectory

Just as Euratom turned Europe’s nuclear rivalry into cooperation, MENARA could reshape the Middle East’s nuclear landscape. Its fate, however, depends on whether leaders choose dialogue over rivalry or repeat the Atom for Peace paradox, where promise turned into peril.

Ajay S R is an intern under TRIP

Mentored and Edited by Sneha Yadav

---