The English proverb “give a dog a bad name and hang him” seems relevant to the present treatment of Iran. For decades, Iran has been portrayed as a nuclear threat, despite being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1968. In contrast, countries like India and Pakistan, which never signed the treaty, developed nuclear weapons without facing comparable, sustained pressure. It is often argued that Iran once explored nuclear weapons capability, largely as a deterrent. However, diplomatic efforts in 2015 led to an agreement under which Iran accepted strict limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for relief from sanctions. The subsequent withdrawal of the United States from this agreement in 2018 reversed those commitments and reignited tensions. Today, the continued hostility toward Iran raises questions. If its nuclear capabilities have been curbed or contained, why does confrontation persist? The answer appears rooted less in immediate threat and more in deep mistrust and geopolitical rivalry. Such a situation risks validating the proverb”where perception, once fixed, overrides present reality.
