The geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran continue to cast a long shadow over the broader Middle East and global diplomatic affairs. At the heart of this mistrust lies the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, during President Donald Trump’s first term (2016–2020). This decision not only disrupted a delicately crafted diplomatic agreement but also highlighted a growing rift between the U.S. and its traditional allies. As the world transitions into a multipolar order, it is imperative to reimagine the path forward—one rooted not in coercion but in cooperation and mutual respect.

The Broken Trust

The JCPOA, signed in 2015, was the result of years of painstaking negotiations between Iran and six major powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany. It represented a landmark achievement in nuclear diplomacy. Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program and allow comprehensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, it received relief from harsh economic sanctions.

All signatories, including the IAEA, acknowledged Iran’s full compliance with the terms of the agreement. Even those countries historically cautious about Iran’s intentions—like the UK and France—expressed satisfaction with the verification regime. Yet, in 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the deal, citing information provided in a high-profile presentation by then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This decision—absent of multilateral consultation—sent shockwaves across diplomatic circles and eroded the trust painstakingly built over years.

For Iran, the withdrawal was a stark reminder that even international agreements can be rendered fragile by political change in Washington. For the international community, it was a lesson in the volatility of U.S. foreign policy and the limits of American unilateralism.

The Trump-Netanyahu Axis

It is evident that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu shared a common agenda: to isolate Iran and reframe the regional security narrative through a lens that disproportionately portrayed Iran as an existential threat. While concerns about Iran’s regional policies and its missile program are valid and worthy of dialogue, dismantling a functioning nuclear agreement only exacerbated tension.

Iran, on its part, exercised significant strategic restraint in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. However, over time, it gradually scaled back its compliance, a move that was both predictable and justifiable under the deal’s own dispute resolution mechanism. The blame for the deal’s breakdown lies not in Tehran but in Washington’s abrupt and unilateral departure from a multilateral agreement.

A Changing Strategic Landscape

Since 2018, the global strategic environment has shifted considerably. Iran has fortified its regional alliances and has emerged as a strategic partner to both Russia and China. These relationships are not just symbolic; they are rooted in deepening economic, military, and diplomatic cooperation. Iran has joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is aligning itself with regional initiatives that challenge Western hegemony.

At the same time, the United States finds itself increasingly isolated in global geopolitics. Relations with traditional allies in Europe have frayed, particularly over issues like trade, climate change, and unilateral actions in the Middle East. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), once a forum where the U.S. could effortlessly push through resolutions, has become a more contested space. Today, even if the U.S. resorts to its veto power, it can no longer expect automatic support from European or Asian allies.

The erosion of American global supremacy is not an endpoint but a signal of a changing world—one that requires humility, adaptability, and strategic patience.

Why Coercion Won’t Work

Attempts to coerce Iran—whether through maximum pressure campaigns, economic sanctions, or military threats—have failed to produce desired outcomes. Iran has shown remarkable resilience, developed domestic capabilities and fostered regional partnerships to mitigate the impact of sanctions. It is a nation with a proud history, a well-educated population, and a strategic location that ensures its relevance on the global stage.

Moreover, Iran is no longer as diplomatically isolated as it was a decade ago. It has built trust with key regional and global players, particularly China and Russia, who are increasingly willing to challenge Western narratives. Any new pressure campaign from Washington will likely be met not with isolation but with counterbalancing from Tehran’s allies.

The Case for a Mediated Settlement

Given the depth of mistrust—especially towards any U.S. administration led by President Trump—it is unrealistic to expect Iran to re-enter negotiations directly with the United States without strong safeguards. The way forward lies in mediated diplomacy through neutral or friendly third-party states, ideally with the active involvement of Russia and China. These powers not only enjoy strategic partnerships with Iran but also possess enough global clout to enforce any agreement they guarantee.

Such a multilateral format would lend credibility to the negotiations and ensure that commitments made are not easily discarded with a change in political leadership. A neutral venue—such as Switzerland, Norway, or even Beijing—could host these talks under the supervision of international organizations like the IAEA and the United Nations.

The contours of a new agreement need not reinvent the wheel. The original JCPOA can serve as a foundational framework, with modifications to address new concerns, such as regional security dynamics and ballistic missile development. In return, Iran should be offered concrete, irreversible relief from sanctions and meaningful integration into the global economic system.

A Moment for Statesmanship

Ultimately, the world stands at a crossroads. Continuing down the path of confrontation will only deepen instability, increase human suffering, and diminish the prospects for peace in the Middle East. The alternative is a return to diplomacy—difficult, slow, and often frustrating, but the only path with the potential for lasting success.

President Trump, should he return to office, has an opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship rather than showmanship. He could help craft a legacy of reconciliation and strategic balance rather than continued discord. Similarly, Iran’s leadership can signal its commitment to peace and progress by engaging constructively with the international community under fair and dignified conditions.

Course of Action

The time for unilateralism is over. The challenges of today’s multipolar world demand multilateral solutions, grounded in mutual respect and legal commitments. A new agreement between Iran and the United States is possible—but only through sincere dialogue, mediated diplomacy, and credible guarantees.

If the United States wishes to reclaim its role as a responsible global actor, it must prioritize diplomacy over dominance. The future of peace in the Middle East—and perhaps the credibility of international diplomacy—depends on it.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Advisor, Consultant, Researcher at Global South Economic and Trade Cooperation Research Center, and Non-Resident Fellow of CCG. (E-mail: [email protected]).

Featured image source

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link