In July 2024, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report titled “Iran’s nuclear and missile activity”. The report revealed that Iran has significantly modulated its production of 60-percent uranium. It also revealed that Tehran possesses the infrastructure and expertise to quickly produce weapons-grade uranium at multiple facilities. With rising tensions in the Middle East and the very real possibility of military escalation between Israel and Iran, Western states must re-examine the dynamics of nuclear deterrence, and develop a cohesive strategy to counter Iran’s influence.
It is no secret that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons over the last few decades. In 1979, the Iranian revolution deposed the monarchical Mohammed Reza Shah and gave rise to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Led by Ruhollah Khomeini, the new regime was characterised by Shi’a-driven theocracy, authoritarianism, and anti-Westernism, deepening the divide between Iran and Western-backed Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia.
Ruhollah Khomeini’s successor in 1989, Ali Khamenei, continued to go down this path looking to export his vision of Islamism across the Middle East. Under Khamenei, Iran has covertly funded and trained various militant groups across the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shi’a militias in Iraq such as the Badr Organisation and Asa’ib Ahl-Haq. Khamenei has also repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and proposed a nine-point plan in 2014 for the elimination of the state. It seems that Iran’s recent push for nuclear weapons is merely the final ingredient in the regime’s expansionist foreign policy over the last 45 years.
Sir David Frost, former television host and journalist, once said that “Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way”. Could a diplomatic solution be found with Iran? In terms of US-Iran relations, the closest we got to a diplomatic solution was the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. The JCPOA, signed by Iran, the UK, the US, China, France, Germany, and Russia, stated that Iran must limit its nuclear programme, in return for sanctions relief. Iran would be subject to inspections of its nuclear facilities to ensure cooperation.
While the deal helped ease short-term tensions between Iran and the US, it had fundamental flaws. First, the JCPOA did not allow for “anytime, anywhere” inspection of nuclear sites; inspectors were only to come from countries which Iran had diplomatic relations with, and inspections must be approved by Tehran beforehand. This seriously undermined the transparency of the agreement. Second, the deal did not make any considerations of Iran’s funding of militant groups across the region. If anything, this was now further facilitated through Iran’s sanctions relief. Finally, the JCPOA was only to be in effect until 2025; by then, another deal would have to be reached to prevent further uranium enrichment by Iran, which is of course, far from guaranteed. The Trump administration ultimately withdrew from the deal in 2018, and ever since, Iran’s relations with the West have severely deteriorated. Currently, given the devastating conflicts between Israel and its Iranian-backed adversaries in Gaza and Lebanon, the possibility of a diplomatic agreement between the two parties seems dire.
And yet, there might be hope. Recent Saudi-Iran talks indicate a willingness on Iran’s part to engage with regional neighbours. The recent talks with Iraq are another good example of this. In fact, Iraq could be an ideal mediator in the Israel-Iran escalation, as Iraq balances its ties with Tehran with Saudi interests. Essentially, despite differing geopolitical goals, Middle Eastern states may find commonality on several issues; for example, the Palestinian question. If the US is to seek out a diplomatic solution to the Iranian threat, it might be wise to look at Iran’s neighbours.
For those that are less optimistic about the diplomatic route, there is always the other option: regime change. Replacing Tehran’s regime with a moderate, democratic and cooperative alternative could mould the Middle East to align with Western interests and forge a potential solution to Iran-Israeli tensions.
Military intervention is a non-starter. Political support back home for another extended military occupation and nation-building, as demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, is at a low. Furthermore, compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is a country with a larger population, a stronger sense of national unity, and possession of more sophisticated military capabilities. It wouldn’t be easy. There is also the danger that all a US-led military intervention would do is strengthen anti-Western sentiment, due to the “rally ‘round the flag effect”; governments often enjoy much higher levels of popularity during times of war.
A better way to conduct regime change is through a soft power approach focused on fostering dissent within Iran by supporting pro-democracy movements within the country, amplifying voices of reform, and applying financial pressure on the regime. While there are economic sanctions on Iran, we could do more. Iran has diversified its economy to reduce reliance on oil (due to significant oil sanctions), so sanctions on non-oil exports could limit Iran’s revenue sources. In addition, the US and the EU could expand their lists of terrorist organisations to include more Iranian proxies. For instance, Hezbollah’s political wing is not considered a terrorist organisation by the EU; doing so would heavily restrict the group’s operations and fundraising capabilities, restricting Iran’s network.
Donald Trump’s 2024 election win has complexified this issue. Where the EU and the UK generally prioritise diplomatic solutions with Iran, Trump has taken a more hard-line stance. Given Trump’s imposition of renewed sanctions on the country, his killing of top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020, and his exit from the JCPOA, his administration will likely aim to cripple Iran’s economy and destabilise the country from within, broadly correlative with the soft-power approach. Unfortunately, the EU-UK diplomatic stance appears to be a thing of the past, with the current state of affairs favouring a regime change through a soft-power approach. What is certain is that America and Europe must develop a cohesive strategy for countering Iran in order to avoid violent escalation and ultimately bring peace to the Middle East.
Card image by Ali Khamenei
Banner Immage by Bundesministerium für Europa, Integration und Äusseres