Long-term commitment

While some experts said the war may have accelerated plans to diversify countries' energy mix, nuclear power requires long-term commitment and project development.

It would take years, even decades of investment, to train skilled personnel, establish robust regulatory and safety institutions, and identify suitable sites based on geological, environmental and social criteria, said Dinita Setyawati, a senior energy analyst at energy think tank Ember.

Yao Lixia, a research fellow at the Energy Studies Institute of the National University of Singapore, said that high upfront costs, long construction timelines, regulatory and institutional gaps, as well as public concerns, mean that nuclear energy remains a long-term strategic consideration rather than an immediate solution.

"While the crisis has revived interest in nuclear as a secure, low-carbon baseload option, it is unlikely to lead to meaningful deployment in the short to medium term," she added.

She said that while governments in the region are increasingly looking at nuclear energy as a reliable power source, it would be part of a preexisting long-term strategy rather than a direct response to the Middle East crisis.

"The current crisis may reinforce the strategic rationale, but most initiatives remain at the level of policy planning and institutional preparation," she said.

A more realistic interpretation, said Tan-Soo, is that the conflict has shifted nuclear from a peripheral option to a more central part of long-term energy planning.

"It strengthens the case for diversification, but does not shorten the timeline required to develop nuclear safely and responsibly," he said.

The Straits Times, Singapore