Since Donald Trump has returned to the Oval Office as the 47th President of the United States, curbing Iran’s nuclear programme has increasingly occupied foreign policy agendas. On many important issues — trade wars, the economy, the future of NATO, mass deportation, ending the Ukraine war, and the Iran nuclear deal, the trump administration has announced ambitious policy shifts. Trump`s approach towards the Iran nuclear deal is driven by its interest in the Middle East and Israel`s lobbying rather than its commitments to the global non-proliferation regime. Trump has presented Tehran with a choice between negotiations or military action.  The new US administration policies will significantly affect the broader regional and international interests.

President Trump, during his first term back in 2018, withdrew from a landmark deal Iran reached in 2015 with the world powers including the US. Under the agreement, Tehran agreed to halt its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Since returning to the White House, President Trump has been moving quickly to address Iran`s nuclear issue.  Under his `maximum pressure policy`, earlier this month, Trump in a letter to Iran`s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged for new talks while warning that the US was within its rights to take military action against Tehran`s nuclear installations.

China, Russia and Iran call for an end to US sanctions on Iran and the resumption of nuclear talks

As concerns rise over Iran`s nuclear program, diplomats from Iran, Russia and China met in Beijing to discuss and find a diplomatic solution to Iran`s nuclear issue which could lead to negotiations following years of delay. China, Russia and Iran call for an end to US sanctions on Iran and the resumption of nuclear talks with October 18, 2025, approaching—the tenth anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the deadline for deciding whether to terminate or extend UN Security Council Resolution 2231.  The snapback mechanism is an emergency brake built into the JCPOA – a unique provision that allows for the swift reimposition of United Nations sanctions against Iran if it violates its nuclear commitments. Washington has been urging for talks while simultaneously threatening additional sanctions and a military strike by Israel or the US against Iranian nuclear sites.

Tehran has never been so close to acquiring nuclear capability, and curbing its nuclear advances has never been more urgent for the world powers, especially the US

On the other hand, with no JCPOA and no alternative deal, Tehran could decide to advance its nuclear programme even further. That prospect looks far more likely following a year that has seen Iran’s deterrent capability severely undermined. Iran can prioritize advancing its nuclear program given the current strategic challenges the country is facing.  For Iran, the pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, though denied officially, fits logically with the country`s national security imperatives. With nuclear Iran, any country confronting Iran directly would be risking not just regional war, but a nuclear exchange. Hence, the nuclear capability would drastically enhance deterrence.

Tehran has never been so close to acquiring nuclear capability, and curbing its nuclear advances has never been more urgent for the world powers, especially the US. For Iran, ending the 45-year old US-led embargo on the country that has crippled its economy profoundly is an urgent need. Meanwhile, engaging in talks with the US which seeks a negotiated deal with Iran that curbs its ballistic missile programme is the question of its national survival. This alongside the escalating tensions in the region casts doubts on the prospects of the nuclear deal.

Today, the world has become a dangerous place with the weakening of global nuclear governance

Recent developments in the Middle East and Russia-Ukraine war and threats of nuclear use against Ukraine have induced concerns that other states may seek nuclear weapons. Hinting at this possibility, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during the August 2022 review conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), said that Russia’s behaviour sends “[t]he worst possible message … [to] any country around the world that may think that it needs to have nuclear weapons to protect, to defend, to deter aggression against its sovereignty and independence.”

This is not the only case in point, since the world has already seen invasions which have threatened the national survival of many sovereign countries. Besides, there are precedents set such as the US-India nuclear deal and the US silence on Israel`s nuclear program and its continued military support to Israel.  The same is the case of the agendas at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) which only encourages asymmetries between rivals while failing to promote the broader international security interests. Today, the world has become a dangerous place with the weakening of global nuclear governance. Though the non-proliferation efforts have led to some success in the past, the deepening of great power competition and the geopolitical interests of major powers are undermining the existing treaties and hindering progress towards meaningful dialogues and cooperation as they privilege national preference over the collective and commonly accepted approach.

Supporting one at the expense of the other`s security would only lead to intensifying of threat perceptions and security dilemmas

To conclude, only through an unbiased and balanced approach, the US would be able to achieve success not only in the context of the Iran nuclear agreement but the global non-proliferation efforts. Without addressing biases and promoting a balanced security environment in the region, any successful effort toward regional and global peace could not be anticipated. Supporting one at the expense of the other`s security would only lead to intensifying of threat perceptions and security dilemmas.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.