Broken promises, rising risks: Collapse of US–Iran nuclear talks

Kottayam, Jun 9 (360info) The collapse of the latest round of nuclear talks between the US and Iran is not just a diplomatic failure but a major threat to the global non-proliferation regime.

The talks had offered a tentative window for re-engagement following years of mutual recrimination.

Worse, this breakdown occurred amid a volatile Middle Eastern situation where Israel, emboldened by US support, views Iran’s support to Hamas and Hezbollah as an existential threat.

The Donald Trump administration’s decision to impose a travel ban on Iranian nationals, along with nationals of 11 other countries, further demonstrated Washington’s broader turn to confrontation.

With diplomacy at a standstill, the risk of escalation – nuclear or military – is real and growing.

Iran’s nuclear journey Iran’s nuclear programme began way back in the 1950s, under the Shah regime, with American support. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the West abruptly withdrew support, accusing the new regime of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of energy independence.

In response, Tehran doubled down, framing nuclear self-sufficiency as a symbol of sovereignty and defiance.

Through the 1990s and early 2000s, Iran developed enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow. These programmes, shrouded in secrecy, alarmed the West, especially as Iran limited cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

This secrecy fed into concerns that Iran was developing a parallel weaponisation programme, claims that Iran denied.

Today, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei remains adamant. In a recent speech, he declared, “They [the Americans] cannot do a damn thing… Our nuclear industry is a source of pride.” For Khamenei, halting enrichment means surrendering scientific achievement and geopolitical leverage, a red line Iran will not cross.

The JCPOA and its discontents The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany), was designed to curb Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

Under this agreement, Iran had agreed to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, dropped its stockpile by 98 per cent, and dismantled thousands of centrifuges. The IAEA was granted enhanced access and supervision.

Yet, while hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, the JCPOA had notable weaknesses. Chief among them were the “sunset clauses,” which meant that many of its restrictions would expire by 2025–2030. Verification, while strong on paper, allowed Iran to delay inspections by up to 24 days.

Critics argued that the deal front-loaded economic incentives for Iran while offering insufficient long-term guarantees to the West.

In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, despite Iran’s compliance as verified by the IAEA and reimposed sweeping sanctions, triggering Iran’s gradual exit from the deal’s limits.

Enrichment levels soared to 60 per cent, and IAEA inspections were curtailed. The agreement collapsed under the weight of unilateralism and mistrust.

Trump’s second term In his second term, President Trump revived nuclear diplomacy with Iran while simultaneously reinstating his “maximum pressure” policy in February 2025, combining tough economic sanctions, an oil export blockade, legal action against Iran-backed operatives, and efforts to reimpose UN sanctions.

While publicly vowing Iran would never acquire nuclear weapons, Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, proposed a two-phase plan allowing temporary low-level enrichment in exchange for future fuel supply through a regional consortium, highlighting the contradiction between coercive tactics and diplomatic overtures.

This stark contradiction led Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to dismiss the US stance as “unreasonable and unconventional.” The inconsistencies, coupled with Washington’s aggressive rhetoric, including the latest travel ban on Iran, left Iran unconvinced of American sincerity.

Core differences The central impasse remains uranium enrichment.

The US seeks total dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities to block any path to a nuclear bomb. Iran insists that enrichment is a peaceful right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

For Iran, ending enrichment means forfeiting a hard-won deterrent and trusting Western powers that, in its view, have repeatedly violated promises. Memories of denied medical uranium in the 2000s and targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists only fuel this scepticism.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has tied nuclear negotiations to Iran’s regional behaviour—its support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—further complicating the scope of talks.

Iran views this as an overreach aimed at undermining its regional influence and securing Israeli dominance.

As reported by Axios, Iran showed its willingness to consider a pragmatic deal involving limited enrichment under IAEA monitoring and international guarantees. Yet, the US quickly reverted to hardline demands, stalling any meaningful progress.

Regional fallout and the role of other powers The failure of the nuclear talks is not confined to Washington and Tehran. The entire Middle East now faces heightened instability. Israel sees a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat and has hinted at unilateral action.

Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief rival, has publicly stated that it will match Iran’s capabilities if Tehran crosses the nuclear threshold. The threat of a regional nuclear arms race thus becomes greater than at any time since the Cold War.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are increasing their engagement. Russia has reportedly been approached to mediate. Trump is trying to use Russia’s close ties with Iran to advance American interests in the stalled nuclear talks.

However, according to Boris Dolgov, a leading researcher at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies, Moscow is unlikely to pressure Tehran to meet Washington’s demands.

China, already Iran’s largest trading partner, continues to build long-term energy and infrastructure deals. These actors may dilute Western influence and limit the pressure of sanctions.

As Iran moves closer to becoming a de facto threshold state, much like Japan, but without the same transparency, the collapse of non-proliferation norms is a real danger —especially if Iran withdraws from the NPT, a threat it has hinted at.

Beyond JCPOA to sustainable non-proliferation Despite the diplomatic stalemate, a path remains – one grounded in realism and international norms. Iran has consistently indicated its willingness to allow inspections if its right to enrichment is respected. The US would have to rethink its strategy to reflect this.

A new agreement must move beyond the JCPOA. Instead of sunset clauses, permanent verification systems should be installed.

A system like this would allow peaceful nuclear development while ensuring immediate spotting of any move toward weaponisation.

This approach has the potential to serve as a worldwide standard for aligning nuclear energy use with efforts to prevent proliferation, especially as more countries turn to nuclear power to address climate challenges.

Crucially, the US ought to treat Iran’s nuclear programme separately from its regional activities. Combining them with nuclear talks only reduces the chances for productive diplomacy.

Diplomacy must prevail, before it’s too late The failure of the 2025 US–Iran nuclear talks is a setback, but not yet a catastrophe.

With timely action, the prospect of avoiding both military escalation and the erosion of the NPT remains within reach. The upcoming expiry of UN Security Council Resolution 2231’s key provisions in October 2025 offers a brief opportunity for revival.

To seize this narrowing window, Washington must move beyond the false choice between capitulation and confrontation, and instead embrace bold, enforceable diplomacy. Tehran, in turn, must pair its calls for sovereignty with genuine transparency and restraint. (360info.org) GRS GRS