Geopolitical instability and volatility are altering the global policy landscape - shifting the dynamics of trade, manufacturing, energy, and the clean transition agenda. On Sunday, the United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. These attacks on nuclear facilities cast a shadow on the nuclear sector, raising fears of a renewed global slowdown in nuclear development. Nuclear energy, which had only recently begun to regain momentum after a long lax period, may be the next unintended casualty of this geopolitical volatility.
A Fine Line
Public policy is sensitive to political economy, and decisions are often shaped not just by scientific evidence but by how technology is framed and perceived. Historically, the nuclear energy industry has been driven as much by public perception and political narratives as by technical and economic feasibility. While nuclear technology for power generation holds immense potential to drive the global energy transition, it has always been haunted by its dual-use nature, as there is a very fine red line between the civilian and military use of nuclear energy. The same reactors that promise clean, low-emission, round-the-clock baseload power are symbolically - and often politically - entangled with developing nuclear weapons.
As the world struggles to meet the twin challenges of energy security and decarbonisation, especially in developing countries like India, nuclear power offers a compelling solution by producing low-carbon, stable, 24/7, baseload energy, independent of weather conditions, making it an appropriate complement to renewables, as countries gradually shift away from fossil fuels.
3 Events That Changed Everything
Also, nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy generation. The fatalities per unit of electricity produced (TWh) are roughly 350 times more for coal and 250 times for gas, as compared to nuclear energy. Yet, nuclear power is still viewed with scepticism. This scepticism is due to safety concerns, particularly regarding accidents, radioactive waste disposal and the potential for nuclear proliferation. In the past, incidents like Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011) dramatically altered public opinion and policy. These disasters did not just shake public confidence; they fundamentally reshaped the regulatory landscape, adding layers of compliance, inflating costs, and delaying projects worldwide.
Post Three Mile Island, although there were no casualties, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission introduced sweeping reforms-chiefly, enhanced operator training, emergency planning, and stricter design requirements-that added $5 billion in retrofit costs across plants and extended construction timelines significantly. Chernobyl, which caused 31 immediate deaths and widespread transboundary contamination, intensified these effects. Countries like Austria and the Netherlands suspended nuclear plans, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiated global safety protocols, including early warning systems and the Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) programme for plant inspections. The accident prompted major design overhauls, raising construction costs further. Fukushima, despite no direct deaths from radiation, led Japan to shut down its entire nuclear fleet and pushed Germany to commit to a full nuclear phase-out. In the US, Fukushima forced costly reassessments of flood risks, even for plants already under construction, like Vogtle 3 and 4, delaying them by years. Post-Fukushima, the IAEA downgraded its growth projections for the global nuclear energy sector by 7- 8%. Across all three events, regulation shifted from permissive to risk-averse, escalating costs and undermining investor confidence. As a result, while nuclear safety improved markedly, the industry became slower, costlier, and less attractive for private investment.
Threat To Progress
After decades of stagnation, nuclear energy was witnessing a global revival recently. A new wave of interest - driven by the urgency of climate goals, technological innovation, and a renewed appetite for energy security - was taking shape. Countries are investing once again, not just through state-led initiatives but increasingly by unlocking private capital. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in a rapid growth scenario, annual investments in nuclear power will need to double to around $120 billion by 2030. This scale of expansion cannot be shouldered by public funding alone. Encouragingly, the private sector is beginning to see nuclear energy as a credible investment. Predictable cash flows - enabled through supportive policy frameworks and long-term power purchase agreements - are key to reducing financing costs. Major technology firms, such as Google and Meta, are already signing agreements with nuclear developers to power data centres and artificial intelligence operations, recognising nuclear energy's value as a firm, clean source.
But just as the sector was gaining momentum, geopolitical instability threatens to derail this progress. The spectre of a nuclear strike on a nuclear facility, in the case of Iran, revives old fears that nuclear technology, no matter how well-intentioned, is inseparable from strategic vulnerability. Such developments not only stir public anxiety but also raise serious questions about the security of nuclear infrastructure, especially about the international safety mechanisms to protect the nuclear infrastructure.
Let Not Fear Rule
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has declared its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Yet, it was attacked by the US and Israel. If such internationally safeguarded nuclear sites are vulnerable to attack, will states, along with the private players, have confidence in a multilateral non-proliferation regime that cannot guarantee protection?
The consequences of this can be far-reaching. A renewed perception of nuclear energy as a high-risk, high-stakes technology could once again tighten regulatory frameworks, dampen investor confidence, and slow down project approvals. In short, the fragile resurgence of nuclear power could be compromised not by technical shortcomings or financial barriers, but by the re-emergence of fear, perception, and politics.
If the world is serious about achieving net-zero targets while ensuring energy security, nuclear energy must be allowed to grow under a stable and predictable policy and regulatory environment. A clear distinction between the civil and military nuclear facilities should be maintained, with the IAEA making necessary provisions for the safety of the civil nuclear facilities under its safeguards. The bottom line is that the recent threats against the nuclear infrastructure could undermine the nascent global momentum toward nuclear power, at a time when it is most needed. Policymakers, investors, and the public must guard against allowing fear to overtake fact, to avoid the risk of derailing a critical pillar of the clean energy future.
(The author is a research analyst with the Centre for Climate Change and Energy Transition at Chintan Research Foundation)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
