Engage or Escalate: The West’s Critical Choice on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Once again, Donald Trump has proven through his decisions—particularly the imposition of heavy trade tariffs on countries around the world—that he is more of an economic actor than a political one. His decision-making, above all else, is driven by economic interests. From levying high tariffs to threatening to withdraw military and security support for Europe, Trump has signaled a shift in the transatlantic balance of interests. In this context, the European Union and the three European signatories to the Iran nuclear deal (E3) must rethink their approach to both their economic sovereignty and collective security. Though arguably late to this realization, there is still time to act.

By continuing to play on the field of an economic, not political, negotiator, the E3 risk becoming perpetual responders to Trump’s demands for economic concessions. Instead, it is imperative that these countries reduce their reliance on U.S. support for tackling acute challenges such as security, economic instability, and migration. Strategic recalibration is not just prudent—it is essential.

Unfortunately, the E3 appears to be repeating the same miscalculations when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. Playing by Trump’s rules is not only a strategic error—it’s a failure to recognize the geopolitical realities of today. The United States and its European allies are well aware that Iran can no longer be treated as a “developing nuclear nation.” Over the years, Iran has evolved into a technologically advanced nuclear state, with scientific and technical achievements that are both significant and undeniable.

To exclude Iran from global nuclear dynamics is not only unrealistic—it is counterproductive. Iran’s continued exclusion would hinder the broader advancement of peaceful nuclear energy in both regional and global contexts. The country’s nuclear accomplishments are already well-recognized worldwide and must be acknowledged in any serious diplomatic equation moving forward.

Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that, in accordance with the fatwa issued by their Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country has never sought—and does not seek—any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. However, if U.S. and European leaders, particularly the JCPOA signatories, continue their threatening rhetoric or take irrational actions based on flawed calculations—actions that could endanger the very existence of the Iranian state—Iran may be compelled to reassess its strategic calculus.

Under Article 10 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran reserves the right to reconsider its commitments should its national security be fundamentally jeopardized. This is a legal mechanism recognized within the framework of international law.

It is crucial for Western policymakers to understand a simple but evident reality: Iran is not Libya. The nuclear program in Iran is entirely indigenous, both in terms of scientific expertise and technological infrastructure. Moreover, the scale and geographical dispersion of Iran’s nuclear facilities have expanded significantly over the years. Therefore, any idea to replicate the “Libyan scenario” with Iran is not only misguided—it is strategically unfeasible.

Iran’s nuclear advancements are deeply rooted in national pride and scientific self-reliance, the country’s strategic depth and regional posture make any military or coercive approach exceptionally unrealistic and counterproductive.

The 2015 Nuclear Deal: A Historic Moment

In July 2015, after years of intense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China), known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement marked a historic moment in international diplomacy and raised hopes for paving the way for diplomatic solutions in future international agreements. However, the path of the JCPOA was not smooth. A major setback occurred when Trump decided to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in 2018, driven by pressure from Israel, and skepticism among security officials in his administration about the deal. This led the agreement into a prolonged and uncertain path.

Following this withdrawal, Trump, through his maximum pressure campaign, reinstated unilateral and illegal sanctions against Iran, leading to the blockade of diplomatic path. Europeans also failed to fulfil their promised commitment to compensate. With the arrival of Joe Biden’s administration in 2021, hopes for a return to the JCPOA increased. Long negotiations were initiated in Vienna, but lack of trust between the parties led to the talks once again reaching an impasse.

The 2015 nuclear deal was not only a diplomatic achievement but also a symbol of the international community’s ability to resolve complex issues through dialogue and multilateral agreements. However, the U.S. withdrawal from the deal, the weakening of Europe’s role, and the rise in regional tensions have turned this “historic deal” into a difficult and uncertain path.

The parties to the agreement believe that due to significant advancements in Iran’s nuclear program, the current JCPOA no longer serves its original purpose. However, Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that they are willing to negotiate within the general framework of the JCPOA, namely removal of sanctions vis a vis certain time linked nuclear limitations. Reviving the JCPOA framework or reaching a replaced agreement is only possible if political will, practical trust-building, and mutual interests are prioritized. Otherwise, another costly confrontation will once again bring the Middle East closer to a new precipice.

The Consequences of a Military Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

During his election campaign and at the beginning of his presidency, Trump, influenced by his security team and detached from the political realities, considered a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, potentially led by Israel with U.S. support, as a viable option. However, over time, and with a better understanding of the political landscape and Iran’s undeniable capabilities, he realized that this scenario was not only impossible but also the most dangerous approach to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. As a result, he shifted his position and, through his letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader and public statements, recognized diplomacy as the best possible scenario for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. He became fully aware of the severe consequences that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could entail.

• Lack of International Consensus for Military Action Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: No military strike in today’s world can claim sufficient legitimacy without international support. Even if the United States were inclined to launch an attack, even key allies such as European countries will difficulty approve and China and Russia would oppose. They continue to emphasize diplomatic solutions and the revival of multilateral agreements like the JCPOA. The absence of global consensus could undermine the political and legal legitimacy of any military operation, potentially leading the U.S. into international isolation.
• Historical Lessons from Costly Past Wars: The Iraq war, which was launched under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, not only failed to uncover such weapons but also resulted in years of war, instability, and huge financial and human costs, including for U.S. This experience has led U.S. military and political decision-makers to approach military options with greater caution. The long-term costs, damage to America’s credibility, and the empowerment of extremist groups are among the consequences of such a war.
• Economic Risks for the Global Energy Market: Iran is situated in a region through which more than one-third of the world’s oil passes (the Strait of Hormuz). Any military conflict in this area could lead to a sharp rise in oil prices, disruptions in global energy supply, and the creation of a global economic crisis. Such an outcome would not only destabilize the global economy but also put significant pressure on the U.S. economy itself.
• Geopolitical Complexities of the Region: The Middle East is one of the most complex geopolitical arenas in the world. Iran has a vast network of allies across the globe. Any military strike could trigger a chain reaction from these allies, potentially engulfing the entire region. In fact, the U.S. may find itself drawn into a multifaceted regional conflict rather than a limited war.
• Astronomical Costs of War: Trump has consistently criticized the exorbitant costs of the Iraq war and emphasized the need to withdraw military forces from the region to reduce U.S. military and foreign expenditures. Military estimates suggest that even a limited strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could cost billions of dollars. In the case of a full-scale conflict, this figure could rise to hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that the U.S. financial and budgetary problems, a growing fiscal deficit, and domestic economic challenges, make it difficult for the U.S. administration to justify to the public and lawmakers.
• Vulnerability of U.S. Infrastructure and Interests in the Region: Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that any military threat against the country’s nuclear facilities will be met with a decisive response. In the event of an attack, Iran could deliver asymmetric and indirect retaliatory actions, ranging from targeting U.S. bases in the region, and the Persian Gulf, to attacking naval vessels, oil lines, and even U.S. allies such as Israel. These regional vulnerabilities make it likely that decision-makers in Washington will largely exclude military options from the list of plausible scenarios.
• Iran’s withdraw from International Frameworks such as NPT: As Iran has repeatedly stated, one of the consequences of a military strike would be Iran’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and based on Article 10 of the treaty, in response to the threats and the jeopardizing of its territorial integrity. This exit would not necessarily mean the immediate development of nuclear weapons, but it could allow Iran to adopt any new strategy. In fact, what was initially intended to halt Iran’s nuclear program could result in the exact opposite outcome.
• Comprehensive Expansion and Development of Iran’s Nuclear Program: Experience has shown that military actions often do not result in pre intended results; rather, they tend to encourage the targeted country to Treat Opposite. An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could lead Iran to consider fully withdrawing from cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
• Domestic Public Opinion Pressure in the U.S.: In recent years, there has been notable public fatigue in the U.S. regarding military operations abroad. The majority of Americans, according to the polls, oppose entering new wars and prefer that the country’s resources be focused on domestic issues. In the current politically polarized environment, no president, including Trump, want to bear the cost of losing popularity over another war.

Although some political and security circles in Washington continue to emphasize military threats as a deterrent tool, a range of factors—from economic and geopolitical risks to domestic and international political calculations—make military action against Iran, if not impossible, unlikely and costly. For this reason, the likelihood of rejecting this option in behind-closed-doors meetings has increased more than ever before.

A U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would not only fail to prevent the advancement of Tehran’s nuclear program, but it could also lead to its expansion and create a more unstable security environment in the region and the world. Such an action could come at the cost of thousands of lives, instability in global markets, and the creation of new rifts in the international order. The military option, at best, is a short-term and costly solution, the long-term consequences of which would affect all stakeholders.

Division in Washington

While Iran’s nuclear energy program is entirely peaceful and has reached more advanced stages of enrichment and infrastructure development under the full supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based on mutual agreements, deep divisions have emerged within the U.S. power structure regarding how to address this program. These differences are not only evident between Republicans and Democrats but also increasingly visible within the current administration. The division stems from two viewpoints: Trump prefers a diplomatic scenario to reach an effective agreement, while his team, including figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, favors a military strike as the proposed option. Trump understands that military action will never be able to halt Iran’s entirely peaceful program, and therefore, he believes efforts should focus on achieving an effective agreement.

Trump must strive to reach a win-win agreement based on full mutual respect. He either needs to convince his security team that such a scenario is the most likely path to resolving Iran’s nuclear program, or he should replace his team with others who share this perspective. Trump must remain vigilant against the traps being hatched by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister. The Americans are well aware that the scenario of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is no viable and is only used as a rhetorical threat to create tension. If Trump seeks a deal, as Iranian officials have stated, he must first demonstrate goodwill by lifting the illegal unilateral sanctions.

Trump and his team must move beyond rhetoric and take practical actions to rebuild the lost trust. They should take the following steps:

• Reversal of Maximum Pressure (Lifting Sanctions): Experiences have shown that this type of campaign has always ended in failure, and it will fail again this time. Trump should take practical steps to reach a mutually beneficial agreement and reverse the maximum pressure strategy by lifting the sanctions.
• Stop Military Threats: Iranian officials have stated that they are not ready to negotiate under threats. If Trump is truly seeking a fair agreement, he must avoid threatening.
• Acceptance of Iran’s Nuclear Rights: Iran’s nuclear technology has been domestically developed and advanced. Acknowledging Iran’s right to enrichment and the development of peaceful nuclear programs based on article 4 of NPT need to the required as an inherent part of its nuclear rights.

Constructive Engagement – A Window to Peace

The world today is at a critical juncture in the process of redefining the international order. The war in Ukraine, the competition between China and the U.S., and the chronic tensions in the Middle East have distanced the international landscape from stability. Amidst this, one of the few remaining opportunities for successful multilateral diplomacy is the sustainable resolution of the dispute regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s nuclear program, over the past two decades, has become one of the most sensitive international issues—one that is not merely technical or legal, but a battleground for geopolitical struggles, security rivalries, and diplomatic maneuvers. In such an environment, any sustainable solution must come not from the realm of threats and sanctions, but from the path of constructive engagement. The “constructive engagement” scenario remains the best and perhaps the only opportunity to prevent further confrontation, restore international order, and pave the way for diplomacy.

Policymakers in Washington, Brussels, Berlin, and Paris must recognize this moment: the scenario of constructive engagement is a symbol of political maturity and a commitment to lasting peace in the 21st century.

Constructive engagement is not merely about returning to the negotiation table; it is about creating a sustainable and trust-building framework to manage crises and turn threats into opportunities. Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, this approach is based on the following principles:

• Acceptance of each party’s legitimate mutual interests
• Dialogue based on mutual respect
• Providing political and economic guarantees in exchange for adherence to the agreement

Why is engagement still possible?

Despite escalating tensions, there are several reasons indicating that the path to engagement remains open:

• Shared Interests in Non-Proliferation

Iran has consistently advocated for nuclear disarmament and control at both regional and global levels. The world powers are also well aware that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would have uncontrollable consequences. Returning to a workable agreement presents a win-win solution to ensure regional and global peace and stability.

• The High Costs of Confrontation

From cyberattacks to the risks of military conflict, all forms of escalation threaten the collapse of the global security order. Iran has never threatened military action against any legitimate state and has consistently pursued peace at both regional and global levels. In contrast, the threatening rhetoric from the U.S. and Israel has fueled tensions across the region and beyond. Trump would be wise to distance himself from such language and instead pursue a diplomatic path—beginning with the removal of sanctions as a gesture of trust-building.

• Leveraging Economic Opportunities

Iran, especially after years of sanctions, holds the potential for a dynamic economy ripe for investment. As a result, Western and Asian companies could benefit from access to an untapped market with vast energy resources. Constructive engagement can unlock this economic potential.

Components of a Successful Engagement

To succeed on the path of constructive engagement, U.S. and European policymakers must remember the mistakes of the past:

• Avoiding a Sanctions-Only Policy

Sanctions, without a clear roadmap for their removal and the prospect of tangible economic benefits, will not be effective and will only lead to the further narrowing of diplomatic channels.

• Providing Political and Legal Guarantees for the Durability of the Agreement

Iran does not want to fall victim once again to a unilateral withdrawal by the White House. Supranational oversight mechanisms—such as the UN Security Council or embedding the agreement in a binding resolution—can help build confidence. Although Resolution 2231 was an example of such a mechanism, it ultimately failed to be effective due to the U.S. withdrawal.

• Negotiation Without the Illusion of Surrender

Iran is a country with a deep-rooted history and strong national pride. Engagement will only succeed if it is based on mutual respect and shared interests, rather than dictated terms or expectations of surrender.