As Western media continue to portray developments in West Asia, particularly those involving the Resistance Front, as security threats while warning against the emerging multipolar order centered on China, Russia, Iran, and the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, critics say troubling nuclear developments are unfolding in the West. They argue these developments pose a serious threat to global security, yet receive little media attention, while the International Atomic Energy Agency () has remained silent.

In a significant nuclear policy shift, legal amendments in Finland ending the ban on the import and possession of nuclear weapons took effect on Wednesday. Under revisions to the Nuclear Energy Act and the Criminal Code, approved by Finnish President Alexander Stubb on June 26, the import, manufacture, possession, and use of nuclear weapons are now permitted on Finnish territory.

Critics view the move, carried out with little public attention, as another sign of growing nuclear threats to global security. They argue it also exposes the ineffectiveness and double standards of the and countries that claim to champion nuclear security.

Cost of Nuclear Weapons and the Escalating Arms Race

While nuclear-armed states invoke security concerns to prevent countries such as Iran, which maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, from exercising their nuclear rights, official figures point to soaring spending on nuclear arsenals.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the world's nine nuclear-armed states spent nearly $119 billion maintaining, modernizing, and expanding their nuclear arsenals, a 19% increase from 2024.

US accounted for the largest share, spending $56.2 billion, nearly half the global total. China ranked second with $13.5 billion, followed by the United Kingdom with $12.6 billion.

Russia spent $9.5 billion, France $7.7 billion, India $2.8 billion, Pakistan $1.5 billion, and Israel $1.2 billion, while North Korea allocated approximately $656 million to its nuclear program.

Critics argue these figures show that states claiming to uphold nuclear security have not sought to curb the arms race. Instead, while crises unfold elsewhere, they continue expanding and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, increasing the risk of nuclear war.

Western Double Standards on Nuclear Issues

According to critics, with encouragement and support from US and several European governments, Finland is becoming a location for the deployment and storage of Western nuclear weapons, illustrating what they describe as selective and contradictory Western nuclear policies.

They argue that when Western interests are at stake, nuclear developments in certain countries are ignored, while political, legal, economic, and even military pressure is used to prevent independent countries such as Iran from exercising their nuclear rights.

From this perspective, sanctions, threats, and military action targeting Iran's nuclear rights constitute what is described as "Western nuclear terrorism against Iran."

Critics contend Finland's move demonstrates that the real concern is not nuclear security or nonproliferation, but preventing independent countries from acquiring advanced nuclear expertise and becoming models for others.

They argue such a model could weaken the West's nuclear monopoly, promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy, strengthen global calls to end nuclear monopolies, eliminate nuclear weapons, and advance lasting international security.

's Silence and the Bombing of Iran's Nuclear Facilities

Critics also point to what they describe as the continued politicized and irresponsible conduct of the and its Director General, Rafael Grossi. They argue the agency's mandate extends beyond monitoring nuclear activities to preventing nuclear proliferation and advancing global disarmament.

They question why the pursues what they describe as politically motivated cases against Iran while remaining silent on comparable developments or structural changes in Western countries.

Among the examples cited is the agency's silence following the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities during what the article describes as the US-Zionist aggression, despite expectations that it would explicitly condemn such attacks.

From this perspective, Finland's case further demonstrates the agency's double standards and represents another blow to its neutrality and independence.

Critics argue that this trend could ultimately encourage some countries to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). They contend responsibility for such an outcome would rest with the , its Director General, and the approach adopted by Western powers toward international institutions, an approach they say has undermined both their credibility and effectiveness.