The Iranian program file has returned to the forefront of developments in the Middle East, as direct political confrontation between the United States and Iran escalates and the two sides clash by proxy. Several factors are fueling this rise in tensions, which has a variety of implications for the region. This trajectory could lead to significant and protracted escalation or even a direct military clash.
The first factor is that Donald Trump is back in the White House. In 2018, Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was concluded in July 2015 and came into effect in October of the same year. The ten-year implementation period is set to expire this October.
After October, punitive measures against Iran through the UN Security Council resolution that endorsed the agreement will cease. Trump wants to negotiate a new deal on his terms to ensure that Iran never becomes a nuclear power.
Second, the recent correspondence between Washington and Tehran, whether through Arab capitals or international actors, directly or indirectly, have not paved the way for any real progress. The political rhetoric of both sides remains highly charged, and while escalating rhetoric can be a negotiation tactic, it risks entrapping each side and creating a quagmire that never could easily escape.
Third, Iran is enriching uranium at 60%, while the agreement set a limit of 4%. That is, Iran is approaching the “nuclear threshold” (90%) that would effectively allow it to enter the club of nuclear powers. This is also considered a red line for Israel. Its nuclear doctrine (the Ben-Gurion Doctrine) is to remain the only country in the region with nuclear weapons, and the US is fully supportive of this position.
The shifting balance of power in the region has had direct and indirect repercussions on Iran’s calculus. Indeed, Iran has lost much of its leverage in the region, which has implications for its negotiating position regarding all of its strategic interests. The "loss of Syria" is one way that Iran’s position has been undermined; this blow has had a multitude of costly strategic ramifications for Tehran, particularly in the Levant and the broader region. Additionally, the support war launched from Lebanon, under the "unity of fronts" framework, has had significant repercussions for Iran’s allies in Lebanon, altering the local balance of power and reshaping Lebanon’s place in this strategy.
It goes without saying that developments in Iraq have compelled Baghdad to adopt more pragmatic and balanced policies over the past few years, allowing the country to pursue its interests more effectively both in the region and globally.
All these developments have either weakened or stripped Tehran of several crucial cards it had relied on in the regional "game of power." The ongoing exchange of "messages" through military action is particularly evident in the Red Sea, where the Houthis’ escalation and the strong US response underscore the strategic and economic significance of this arena for the broader confrontation.
Iran’s nuclear program, which has stormed back on the regional stage, fuels these conflicts and regional flashpoints as well as being fueled by them. There are many questions at this stage: will negotiations resume, even with a changed format, to contain tensions? Talks would not necessarily lead to a mutually satisfactory agreement, as that will not be easy. Could such negotiations allow for de-escalation, allowing us to buy time in the hope that future developments decide matters in favor of one of the two sides?
Will Iran choose the nuclear option despite the risks, tensions, and fundamental shifts it would introduce to the rules of engagement and conflict in the region? Will Israel launch a full-scale preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, with US backing, to prevent Tehran from joining the nuclear club? These are all pressing questions on the "Middle Eastern table.” These questions will shape, and be shaped, by the region’s intertwined volatile flashpoints.
