Geopolitics of the Region: Emerging Conditions, Challenges, and Possibilities
Dr. Hamid Reza Asefi
The outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, which has persisted for nearly three years, has fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape of the region. Shifting alliances, conflicting interests, and divergent strategic perspectives have transformed the region into a new battleground, disrupting its previous dynamics more than ever before. Consequently, the long-standing but dormant hostilities, akin to smoldering embers beneath the ashes, have escalated into full-scale conflict. In parallel, Israel’s relentless and inhumane aggression in Gaza has persisted for nearly a year and a half. During this period, approximately fifty thousand Palestinians have lost their lives directly, while tens of thousands more have perished due to inadequate access to medicine, food, and basic living necessities. More than seventy percent of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed, resulting in the mass displacement of civilians amidst extensive bombardments, backed by the United States. Despite the prolonged aggression, the Zionist regime has achieved nothing beyond the devastation of innocent lives and infrastructure in Gaza.
In addition to the developments in Ukraine and Russia, which have led to substantial casualties on both sides, the conflict in Gaza has further complicated regional geopolitics. These two separate conflicts in distinct regions are becoming increasingly interwoven, reshaping the area’s strategic landscape. The alignments concerning Gaza and Palestine further illustrate the broader geopolitical shifts, emphasizing the roles of both regional and extra-regional actors.
The Impact of Trump’s Presidency on International Politics
The election of Donald Trump in the United States introduced a range of unprecedented policies and challenges on the global stage. His administration’s withdrawal from key international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization, and the imposition of sanctions against the International Court of Justice, sparked significant controversy. Furthermore, his provocative statements regarding Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, and geopolitical restructuring—particularly concerning the forced relocation of Palestinians—have been widely condemned by the international community.
It is crucial to acknowledge that the majority of Gaza’s population comprises refugees who were forcibly displaced from their homes in occupied territories and the West Bank during the 1948 and 1967 wars. Any proposed relocation must, therefore, consider their right to return to their original homes in cities such as Haifa and Jaffa, rather than perpetuate further displacement.
The United States and the United Kingdom have played instrumental roles in facilitating this ethnic cleansing project. Concurrently, the imposition of economic sanctions on China, Canada, Mexico, and European nations has ignited a serious economic confrontation, potentially triggering a global financial crisis.
The Evolving Global Order and the Role of Iran
Many analysts fail to recognize that the world has not undergone fundamental transformations, and the future remains uncertain. It is conceivable that disorder and instability will escalate, with no imminent emergence of a new global order. Whether international structures will undergo significant reform remains to be seen; however, the current frameworks are inadequate for ensuring long-term global stability.
Since assuming office, Trump has consistently issued executive orders and adopted an erratic political style, positioning himself as a disruptive force in international relations. His recent remarks concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran, coupled with his National Security Presidential Memorandum, have urged Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. However, Iran has consistently affirmed that it neither intends to develop nor use nuclear weapons. This stance is not influenced by external pressures or the strategic interests of nuclear-armed states but is rooted in the Islamic Republic’s long-standing doctrine. Since the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei, a binding fatwa has explicitly prohibited the development and use of nuclear weapons, citing their inhumane nature and potential for global instability.
Historically, the United States remains the only nation to have deployed nuclear weapons, thereby undermining its moral authority to dictate nuclear policy to other states. If Washington genuinely seeks to address concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear activities, it must acknowledge the binding fatwa issued on this matter, which was even referenced by former President Barack Obama and corroborated by numerous International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports.
The Israeli Factor and the IAEA’s Role
Before Trump’s administration, Benjamin Netanyahu persistently claimed that Iran was mere months away from acquiring nuclear weapons—an assertion he has reiterated for decades without substantiation. The repeated nature of these unfounded allegations exposes the contradictions in Netanyahu’s rhetoric. Despite these accusations, extensive international investigations have demonstrated that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons. Given Netanyahu’s status as a wanted war criminal, his statements should be met with skepticism. Furthermore, the failure of international institutions to challenge such claims risks undermining their credibility.
Netanyahu’s rejection of viable peace agreements—despite having the opportunity to prevent extensive bloodshed—further demonstrates his administration’s intent to manipulate the international narrative. His meetings with Trump were strategically aimed at disrupting international discourse on Palestine and Iran’s nuclear program. Trump’s contradictory statements on Iran’s nuclear activities, alongside his advocacy for maximum-pressure policies and Israeli-led military interventions, are designed to exert influence over the IAEA and its Secretary-General, Rafael Grossi.
The IAEA’s Stance and European Policy
The IAEA’s forthcoming comprehensive report on Iran’s nuclear activities is expected to be released by the end of next spring. Since Grossi visited Tehran, Iran has demonstrated increased cooperation with the agency, sending clear signals of its commitment to continued engagement. However, despite this collaboration, the IAEA recently issued a condemnatory resolution against Iran, influenced by pressure from European nations. Grossi himself appeared reluctant to support the resolution, further highlighting the politicization of Iran’s nuclear dossier.
Europe and Western nations must recognize that reliance on outdated strategies will not yield their desired outcomes. Iran’s technological and defense capabilities have significantly advanced in recent years, rendering previous negotiation tactics ineffective. If Europe and the IAEA aim to reach a comprehensive agreement with Iran, they must acknowledge Iran’s strengthened position and approach negotiations realistically.
The British Prime Minister’s spokesperson recently claimed that Iran has distanced itself from its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, instead of making accusatory statements, it would be more constructive to examine the root causes of Iran’s shift in policy. Iranian officials have maintained that their actions remain within the JCPOA framework and have been conducted with full transparency in coordination with the IAEA. European nations must abandon their unconditional alignment with U.S. policies and adopt a pragmatic, non-political approach to nuclear diplomacy.
Toward a Middle East Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iran has consistently reiterated that nuclear weapons have no place in its strategic doctrine. A strong and stable Iran benefits both regional and global security more than an isolated and destabilized one. Therefore, the IAEA must pursue impartial assessments and work toward resolving disputes through professional, technical channels rather than political coercion.
Furthermore, Europe must refrain from heeding Netanyahu’s war-driven propaganda and instead adopt a more independent, technical perspective. Iran is willing to clarify its position and establish a cooperative framework with regional actors. A proposed joint nuclear oversight organization among Middle Eastern nations could serve as a constructive initiative to foster transparency and trust. The Islamic Republic believes that regional collaboration—spanning political, economic, cultural, and nuclear issues—can enhance stability in a region that desperately needs it.
Ill-considered threats of military intervention only exacerbate regional tensions. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) remain a primary source of insecurity, especially given the potential for their acquisition by terrorist groups and rogue states, including the Zionist regime. The establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East is a long-standing Iranian objective. However, Israel remains the sole impediment to realizing this crucial initiative. The IAEA and its Secretary-General must prioritize this goal to foster genuine and lasting peace in the region.
Producing an objective and comprehensive report on Iran’s nuclear activities poses a significant challenge for the IAEA. However, history has demonstrated that coercive measures, such as the activation of the JCPOA’s snapback mechanism, are both counterproductive and legally questionable. The UN Security Council’s Resolution 2231, initially violated by the United States and subsequently by three European nations, underscores the broader issue of selective adherence to international agreements. Iran, as one of the most extensively monitored nations by the IAEA, remains committed to its obligations. European nations should resist being manipulated by the Israeli regime’s war-mongering rhetoric and instead adopt a more balanced and constructive approach toward diplomacy.
