Context

• The dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme reflects the intersection of security concerns, regional rivalries, and great-power politics.
• What appears as a technical debate over atomic capability is in fact a broader contest over influence, deterrence, and political legitimacy in West Asia.
• Over time, U.S. policy has moved in a cycle, negotiation, withdrawal, coercion, and a renewed return to diplomacy.
• The issue demonstrates that even adversarial relationships cannot be managed solely through force; they ultimately return to political bargaining.
• The core challenge remains balancing non-proliferation, deterrence, and stability without igniting a wider conflict.

The Origins: Diplomacy and the JCPOA

• In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) emerged from negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany.
• Western governments suspected Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons, while Tehran insisted its programme served civilian nuclear energy.
• The agreement-imposed inspections, restrictions on enrichment, and monitoring mechanisms designed as verification measures rather than trust-based commitments.
• Iran sought relief from economic sanctions, while the international community aimed to prevent a nuclear arms race.
• The deal represented pragmatic diplomacy: neither side achieved full objectives, but both reduced immediate risks.
• It embodied a broader principle of arms control, managing capability instead of eliminating knowledge.
• The agreement temporarily stabilised the region and reopened economic engagement with Iran.

The Trump Administration: Withdrawal and Coercive Strategy

• In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, arguing it failed to protect American interests.
• This move strained relations with European allies and disrupted the coordinated international approach.
• A policy of maximum pressure followed, combining sanctions and later military strikes on Iranian nuclear and air-defence facilities in 2025, conducted with support from Israel.
• Despite the coercive strategy, negotiations re-emerged. The shift revealed a central reality: military action can damage infrastructure but cannot erase technological capability or geopolitical influence. Even after escalation, diplomacy became necessary again.
• The situation illustrated the limits of force and the persistence of diplomatic engagement as an unavoidable tool of international politics.

Israel’s Security Perspective

• For Israel, Iran’s nuclear development is viewed as an existential danger.
• Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu consistently advocated preventing Iran from reaching a nuclear threshold.
• Israeli intelligence assessments heavily influenced U.S. decision-making, reinforcing fears that Iran was moving toward weaponization.
• Israel prioritises prevention above containment, seeking permanent restrictions rather than temporary arrangements.
• The difference between Israeli urgency and American strategic calculation highlights how alliances shape superpower policies.
• While Washington balances global commitments, Israel focuses on immediate national survival, making the issue central to its national security doctrine.

Regional Actors: The Gulf States and the Fear of War

• The Gulf states share rivalry with Iran yet strongly oppose escalation. Their economies depend on trade routes, energy exports, and investor confidence.
• A regional war would disrupt oil markets, maritime shipping, and infrastructure across the Persian Gulf. Stability, even with a rival Iran, is preferable to open conflict.
• Iran has warned it retains retaliatory capability, including potential attacks on U.S. military bases in the region.
• The threat of wider confrontation raises fears of a prolonged crisis. Uncertainty surrounding leadership decisions intensifies anxiety, as unpredictability increases the risk of miscalculation. The priority for regional actors is de-escalation rather than victory.

India’s Strategic Interests and Domestic Politics Inside Iran

• India’s Strategic Interests
  • For India, Iran is more than an energy supplier. Tehran once ranked among India’s major sources of crude oil, linking the issue directly to energy security.
  • The Chabahar Port project provides access to Afghanistan and Central Asia without dependence on Pakistan, making Iran vital for regional connectivity and trade.
  • Iran’s relations with Pakistan, its pragmatic engagement with the Taliban, and its role in Central Asian politics affect India’s broader strategic environment.
  • Sanctions disrupted trade and weakened cooperation, making diplomatic resolution essential. A negotiated settlement supports both economic engagement and geopolitical balance.
• Domestic Politics Inside Iran
  • Internal dynamics within Iran strongly influence external negotiations. Persistent protests, economic pressure, and factional rivalry shape policymaking.
  • External attacks tend to strengthen conservative factions and promote nationalism, weakening reform-oriented moderates who favour engagement.
  • Military pressure therefore produces unintended consequences: instead of compliance, it consolidates domestic unity.
  • Political legitimacy becomes tied to resistance, complicating compromise.
  • Negotiations succeed only when internal political conditions allow leadership to justify cooperation without appearing weak.

Conclusion

• The Iran nuclear issue demonstrates a recurring pattern in international relations: confrontation ultimately returns to negotiation.
• Diplomatic agreements such as the JCPOA may be imperfect, but they reduce immediate risk more effectively than prolonged conflict.
• For regional powers, the stakes involve survival and economic continuity. For global actors, they involve credibility and strategic balance.
• For India, they concern trade routes, energy, and geopolitical access and the broader lesson is clear: sustainable security requires persistent diplomacy, because the alternatives, escalation, retaliation, and regional war, carry unpredictable and far greater costs.