Iran’s nuclear breakout time — the period needed to produce weapons-grade uranium — has shrunk to mere days, signaling both rapid nuclear advancement and a diminishing window for global response. Compounding the urgency is the imminent expiration of “snapback sanctions” under UN Security Council Resolution 2331 in October 2025, with Iran’s uranium stockpile set to reach critical levels by mid‑2025. Global decisionmakers now face a stark choice: reinvigorate diplomatic efforts, intensify economic sanctions, or risk a preventive military strike. Each passing week further heightens the risk of a destabilizing nuclear breakthrough.
Divergent Yet Interlinked Interests: Regional and Extra‑Regional Stakeholders
While the imperative to prevent a nuclear‑armed Iran unites many international actors, the strategies and underlying interests of key stakeholders differ significantly.
At the regional level, countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are grappling with the immediate consequences of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For example, Saudi Arabia finds itself in a particularly delicate position. On one hand, it has strong incentives to act as a mediator — leveraging its vast economic clout and its Vision 2030 goals — to prevent an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could trigger widespread regional instability. However, despite being reportedly open to mediating between Washington and Tehran, Riyadh has yet to formally offer to assume such a role. Its cautious stance perhaps reflects concerns that overt involvement could risk further escalating tensions with Iran or complicate its broader regional rivalries.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has taken on an informal but pivotal role in bridging dialogue between Washington and Tehran. By facilitating backchannel communications, such as delivering a private letter from former US President Donald Trump to Iranian officials, the UAE has demonstrated a pragmatic approach aimed at defusing an otherwise volatile situation. This initiative not only highlights the UAE’s practical diplomacy but also reinforces a broader regional consensus: while military confrontation remains off the table, there is a pressing need for alternative diplomatic channels that can bypass the deadlock often seen in traditional Western approaches.
On the extra‑regional front, the divergence in approaches is equally pronounced. The European troika — comprising Britain, France, and Germany, often referred to as the E3 — has increasingly adopted a tougher stance against Tehran. In June and November last year, these powers, joined the US securing passage of an IAEA Board of Governors resolution censuring Iran, a clear indication that the conditions under which the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was agreed are no longer acceptable. In March, Britain warned that it would trigger snapback sanctions, if necessary, to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. This approach, however, is challenging because it requires European nations to safeguard nonproliferation without provoking Iran into a military escalation.
Shifting focus beyond the region, both China and Russia advocate for a return to the original JCPOA framework, arguing that this approach best preserves regional stability while aligning with their own strategic and economic interests. In mid‑March at a Beijing-hosted trilateral meeting with Iran and Russia, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi outlined a five‑point plan to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue, calling for sanction relief, renewed multilateral talks, and a return to the 2015 deal — a proposal sure to encounter US resistance.
Meanwhile, despite Russia’s reported interest in assisting US efforts to negotiate a new and broader nuclear deal, its backing of Iran — militarily, economically, and diplomatically — and alignment with Beijing against Western sanctions reflect growing geopolitical fractures.
The entrenched distrust that exists between Tehran and Washington further complicates these dynamics. Because of this deep-seated mistrust, any externally brokered deal risks being viewed more as an instrument of geopolitical maneuvering than as a genuine attempt at disarmament.
Thus, while all parties agree on the necessity of avoiding military confrontation over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the divergent regional and extra‑regional interests create a labyrinth of strategic choices that are both interlinked and at odds with one another.
Maximum Pressure and Diplomatic Outreach: Strengthening Iranian Hardliners
To force Tehran back to the negotiating table, the Trump administration in February reinstated its “maximum pressure” campaign — a strategy defined by a sweeping set of economic sanctions aimed at crippling Iran’s economy. Shortly thereafter, Trump revealed that he had sent a private letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urging nuclear talks — a tactic he also used in 2019 with Japan’s then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and previously with Kim Jong Un, which led to meetings but no disarmament deal. Axios later reported that Trump’s letter set a two-month deadline for a new nuclear deal, though when the clock starts remains unclear.
Even as a diplomatic path is on offer, Trump and his team persist in tightening economic sanctions and issuing military threats. On the matter, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “if you force him to choose between a nuclear Iran or taking action, the president’s been clear: He will take action.” Rubio’s remarks coincided with the US launching its first air strikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels since Trump’s return to office, while Trump himself condemned Iran for backing the group attacking US warships, insisting, “Iran must stop the sending of these Supplies IMMEDIATELY.”
“All options are on the table,” Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz, stated in a recent television interview. When pressed on what Iran should forgo, he cited “the missiles, the weaponization, the enrichment” of its nuclear program. However, given that Tehran has shown no willingness to negotiate away its missile capabilities, an all-or-nothing deal seems far-fetched.
These mixed signals have drawn a cautious response from Tehran. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi suggested talks might be possible if Washington ends its “pressure and threats,” but hardliners see the sanctions and vague diplomatic overtures as contradictory, reinforcing their resolve against what they perceive as external coercion. Khamenei dismissed Trump’s proposal as “a deception,” insisting Tehran would not be coerced into talks designed to make Iran appear unwilling to negotiate.
Khamenei’s defiant rhetoric has emboldened conservative elements within the Iranian government. In fact, internal political developments — such as the forcing out of prominent reformist figures — underscore how the maximum pressure campaign may have strengthened hardliners in Iran. Reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian’s promise to broker a nuclear deal in exchange for sanctions relief, which had signaled a new era of engagement with the West, is rapidly losing credibility as rival factions are on the offensive. Frustrated, he has adopted a tougher public stance, further dimming prospects for meaningful negotiations.
The Diplomatic Impasse and the Scramble for a Breakthrough
With Iran’s nuclear program advancing and sanctions set to expire, diplomatic efforts have grown more urgent. A recent closed-door UN Security Council meeting underscored mounting global concern over Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and non-compliance with IAEA safeguards.
Issuing a statement after the meeting, the US called out Iran’s “brazen behavior,” while Britain signaled its readiness to trigger snapback sanctions if Iran fails to curb enrichment. Policymakers are scrambling for a breakthrough, but with trust eroded and traditional diplomatic channels blocked, incremental steps may no longer suffice.
Instead, what is needed is a radical, flexible, and innovative diplomatic approach — one that can bridge the deep-seated mistrust between Tehran and the West while accommodating the divergent interests of regional and global stakeholders. A recent Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) report advocates Iran’s pre-commit to disarmament, including full inspections and dismantling nuclear sites — an approach endorsed by The Wall Street Journal.
Yet Iran is unlikely to accept full dismantlement, viewing its nuclear program as essential for deterrence and regime survival. The US withdrawal from the JCPOA reinforced Tehran’s distrust, while North Korea’s resistance to complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) suggests Iran can defy similar demands without forfeiting diplomatic leverage.
Complicating matters further, Iran has made it abundantly clear that it will not make any nuclear concessions without comprehensive sanctions relief. By linking its nuclear stance to broader regional security concerns, Tehran has set the stage for a high-stakes standoff where punitive measures could entrench both sides in a zero-sum conflict. The international community must weigh the risks of further isolating Iran against the benefits of compelling it to accept stricter non-proliferation measures.
The Looming Threat of a Preventive Military Strike
Amid the escalating diplomatic deadlock, the specter of a preventive military strike — most notably by Israel — continues to cast a long shadow over the region. Recent US intelligence reports suggest that Israel is actively contemplating a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, a move that underscores its longstanding security concerns. Israel views a nuclear‑armed Iran as an existential threat, and as Iran’s uranium enrichment accelerates unchecked, the likelihood of preemptive action grows.
However, the potential consequences of such a military intervention are both severe and unpredictable. For example, Qatar’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, has warned that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could “entirely contaminate” the Gulf waters, posing a grave threat to life in Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait. Such environmental and humanitarian disasters would not be confined to one nation but could ripple throughout the entire region, triggering a dangerous cycle of escalation. According to a recent report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), rather than halting Iran’s nuclear progress, a preventive strike might compel Tehran to disperse its nuclear assets into smaller, more covert sites or even to accelerate its enrichment efforts further, thereby exacerbating the very crisis it sought to avert.
The threat of military action is further intensified by the current geopolitical dynamics. At the same time, US support for an Israeli intervention cannot be ruled out. The Wall Street Journal revealed that during the presidential transition, some Trump officials weighed the feasibility of Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, including potential American military involvement. The consequences of such a confrontation would not only disrupt diplomatic channels but could also ignite a broader nuclear arms race in an already volatile region — an outcome that would have far‑reaching implications for global peace and security.
A Struggle Amid Broader Nuclear Instability and Arms Control Challenges
The challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear program must be understood within the broader context of global nuclear instability and the erosion of traditional arms control frameworks. The collapse of long‑standing agreements such as the US‑Russia New START treaty — now less than a year from expiration and without prospects for extension — has weakened the mechanisms that once provided strategic balance. This deterioration is forcing nations, from Poland to South Korea, to reevaluate their reliance on American security guarantees.
In the United States, contradictory policies have only deepened these concerns. While President Trump has repeatedly warned that nuclear weapons are the “greatest existential threat” facing humanity, his administration’s policies have, paradoxically, fueled discussions among US allies about the need for their own nuclear deterrents. In recent months, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has suggested that his country must explore “opportunities related to nuclear weapons” in light of what he described as a “profound change of American geopolitics.” Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron has indicated that consultations with European allies — such as Germany — are necessary to consider expanding the French nuclear umbrella. In South Korea, the debate over whether to develop a domestic nuclear program has gained momentum as the nation grapples with the dual threat posed by North Korea and an increasingly unpredictable American policy stance.
These developments underscore that the struggle over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is not an isolated crisis but is deeply intertwined with broader global shifts. The weakening of international non-proliferation and arms control norms, coupled with rising tensions among major nuclear powers, creates an environment in which any failure to engage constructively with Iran could serve as a catalyst for a new era of nuclear instability. The risk is that, in the absence of robust diplomatic engagement, the world could witness a proliferation cascade — one where the erosion of non‑proliferation norms leads to more countries pursuing nuclear capabilities, thereby undermining decades of international efforts to maintain strategic stability.
In effect, the broader nuclear non‑proliferation regime is under unprecedented strain. The intricate interplay between national security imperatives, regional rivalries, and shifting global alliances means that resolving Iran’s nuclear challenge is inextricably linked to the overall health of the international arms control architecture. Any failure to address the Iranian crisis constructively may not only trigger a regional nuclear arms race but also further destabilize the delicate balance of global nuclear deterrence.
Conclusion
At this critical juncture, the international community faces a perilous challenge as Iran’s nuclear program accelerates — reducing its breakout time to days while snapback sanctions expire in October 2025. Divergent stakeholders are locked in a stalemate: regional players like Saudi Arabia and the UAE hesitate to mediate, whereas the European E3 insists on strict IAEA compliance and sanctions. In contrast, China and Russia advocate for a return to the original JCPOA. Washington’s dual strategy — combining maximum pressure with ambiguous diplomatic outreach — has only emboldened Iranian hardliners and deepened mistrust, heightening the risk of a preventive military strike, especially by Israel.
Though Iran has previously defied UN resolutions, its adherence to the 2015 nuclear deal before the US withdrawal indicates that diplomacy remains a viable path. With its proxies diminished, deterrence weakened, and economic pressures mounting, negotiation remains the more prudent course — one that key international players can still help shape. With traditional arms control frameworks crumbling, only a bold, unified diplomatic effort that reconciles these divergent interests can prevent a catastrophic escalation and safeguard global security.
