Iran, the nuclear bomb and the European nuclear dream: what does all this mean for your portfolio?

When people hear about nuclear weapons, most switch off automatically. Too abstract, too remote, too apocalyptic. Yet right now there’s a shift playing out behind the scenes of global politics that will have concrete effects on oil prices, defence budgets, bonds and arms manufacturers’ stocks. This is a topic investors can’t afford to ignore.

The conflict between the US, Israel and Iran is entering its second month. And instead of the world seeking a path to de‑escalation, it’s doing the opposite — seriously discussing who else might acquire a nuclear bomb.

Iran was closer than anyone admitted

Let’s start with the facts. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that before the June strikes by Israel and the US, Iran had almost 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent.

For context: military‑grade enrichment is 90 percent. Experts estimate that material could have been assembled into fuel for nine nuclear devices.

An even more chilling figure came from US defence intelligence: it would probably take Iran less than a week to produce enough weapons‑grade uranium for a first bomb. One week.

The strikes damaged some of those capabilities. Targets included, among others, the heavy‑water reactor at the Arak complex and a uranium ore processing plant in Yazd province. The Iranian programme was halted, perhaps damaged — but destroyed?

No one can swear to that yet.

Macron’s grand plan or grand theatre?

At the other end of the world, Europe is responding to American unreliability under the Trump administration in a way that would have been unthinkable five years ago.

French President Emmanuel Macron announced an expansion of the nuclear arsenal, stopped publishing its exact size, and offered eight European countries — including Germany, Poland, the UK and Sweden — participation in a so‑called “advanced deterrence” programme.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz discussed cooperation with France under a new nuclear umbrella. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk went further and hinted that Poland might consider its own nuclear weapons.

France currently possesses roughly 290 nuclear warheads, the UK about 225. These are arsenals designed for deterrence, not for total great‑power war. They’re not sized to give Europe the same security shield that the US nuclear umbrella historically provided through NATO.

Back to 1962?

The situation resembles, though does not reach the same intensity as, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Back then the world stood on the brink of nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba. Paradoxically, the crisis led to stronger control mechanisms: the Moscow–Washington hotline was created and the first limits on nuclear testing were signed.

Today we see the opposite. The New START treaty, which limited US and Russian nuclear arsenals, has expired, and the 55‑year‑old Non‑Proliferation Treaty is under the greatest strain in its history. Instead of new agreements, we hear a country’s prime minister talking about getting his own bomb.

Back then the world survived the crisis and struck deals. The question is whether there is the political will to do the same this time.

Macron: saviour or gambler?

I have to be honest — I have mixed feelings and I won’t sell you a simple story.

On one hand, I understand Macron’s logic. If Trump is truly weakening the US commitment to NATO, Europe needs its own deterrent. By offering a “shared French umbrella,” Paris is trying to prevent every country from getting its own bomb — which would be the worst possible outcome.

On the other hand, this looks like political theatre with very serious consequences. A French arsenal of 290 warheads simply cannot replace the American shield.

And that’s what worries me most. Once “having the bomb” becomes a legitimate part of European debate, other regional powers will ask: why not us?

What this means for your money

Now to what investors care about most.

Defence stocks: This is probably the clearest opportunity. European defence budgets are rising fastest since the Cold War. Germany has breached its own “debt brake” because of defence spending, and Poland is spending over 4% of GDP on its military. Companies like $RHM.DE, $LDO.MI, $SAABF and $BSP.DE are direct beneficiaries of this trend. The market has priced some of this in, but the structural increase in spending is a long‑term story for years to come.

Oil and energy commodities: Conflict in the Persian Gulf is a classic catalyst for rising oil prices. Investors looking to hedge portfolios against escalation traditionally turn to oil names or ETFs.

Bonds and safe havens: Geopolitical uncertainty historically drives capital into safe havens. Gold in particular is very sensitive to nuclear uncertainty.

Risk to markets in general: If the conflict escalates, we’re talking about a scenario where markets react with a sharp correction. No one can precisely estimate the probability of such a scenario, but ignoring it is gambling.

The nuclear debate in Europe is not just an abstract issue for political scientists. It’s a signal that the world is entering a phase of higher geopolitical instability, which always feeds through to markets. The defence industry is structurally on the rise. Oil remains a volatile commodity dependent on escalation or de‑escalation in the Gulf. Gold and defensive positions gain sense as portfolio insurance.

Do you hold oil company shares, or do you think their price is already inflated by the conflict and preferred to sell?