Latest news with #JointComprehensivePlanofAction
The Hindu
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Iran's man at the table
'It was the U.S. which betrayed diplomacy, but it is Iran which must return to the table!' questioned Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi in his address to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting in Istanbul on June 22, immediately after the U.S. bombed Iran's three nuclear facilities — Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. Set against Israel and the U.S., his job was to tell the Islamic world how Iran was betrayed by the same powers with whom it was talking. A former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Mr. Araghchi rose through the ranks of Tehran's foreign affairs between 1988 and 2013. Joining the IRGC during the 1979 resolution, Mr. Araghchi was reportedly chosen to be a part of the 'Quds Force', the IRGC's external affairs branch. While Mr. Araghchi has denied his role in the Quds Force, he was inducted into Iran's Foreign Ministry as an expert in international affairs in 1989. He had served as Iran's Ambassador in Finland, Estonia and Japan, before he was made the official spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry. In 2013, Mr. Araghchi was made Iran's chief negotiator to hold talks with the 'P5+1' group (the U.S., China, France, Russia, the U.K and Germany) on its nuclear programme. After 20 months of talks, Mr. Araghchi was successful in getting all parties to agree to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was signed in 2015. Iran was given relief in economic sanctions and was allowed to have a limited nuclear programme under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The U.S., however, unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018 under Donald Trump. Israel offensive After the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, Iran's then Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian asserted that Tehran had no prior knowledge of the attack. Israel expanded the conflict by attacking Iran's ally in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and killing IRGC commanders in Syria. Houthis, Iran-backed rebels in Yemen, attacked tankers in the Red Sea. In April 2024, in retaliation for an Israeli strike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Tehran launched ballistic missiles at Israel. On May 19, 2024, a helicopter carrying Amir-Abdollahian and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi crashed near the Iran-Azerbaijan border and Mr. Araghchi was chosen as the country's top diplomat in the Masoud Pezeshkian government. As Israeli airstrikes killed more Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, Iran launched its second direct attack on Israel in October that year, warning Israel to end its attack across its borders. Israel retaliated with air strikes. After Donald Trump returned to the White House, the U.S. offered dialogue to Iran, which Tehran accepted. On April 13, 2025, Mr. Araghchi held the first round of talks with Trump officials in Oman over the nuclear programme. 'It was a constructive meeting held in a very peaceful and respectful environment,' opined Mr. Araghchi. They met five times. On June 13, two days ahead of the sixth round of talks, Israel launched a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, scientists and military leaders. On June 22, the U.S. joined Israel's war. Mr. Trump later claimed that U.S. strikes 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear programme. He also announced a ceasefire on Israel and Iran, after an Iranian attack at the American base in Qatar on June 23. 'Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged,' said Mr. Araghchi, accusing the U.S. of 'attacking the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a UN member state'. Leaked U.S. Intelligence reports suggest that the U.S.-Israeli attack set back Iran's nuclear programme by a few months. Despite Mr. Trump's claims that talks with Iran would resume, Mr. Araghchi stated that Iran has no plan to meet with the U.S. over a nuclear deal, adding, 'we know our worth, value our independence, and never allow anyone else to decide our destiny'. As Iran recovers from the war, the challenge before Mr. Araghchi is to strengthen ties with the allies and manage ties with the rivals in a such a way that further external aggression would be prevented at least in the near future.
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Trump Should Have Never Ditched the Iran Nuclear Deal
Questions remain over the true damage to Iran's nuclear program. But as conflicting comments and reports come in from the Trump Administration and Pentagon intelligence estimates, one thing is certain: Trump's failed diplomacy got us in this mess. I should know. Ten years ago, I was in Vienna as part of the U.S. team negotiating a deal to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Those negotiations culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was Trump's decision in 2018 to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal that ultimately led to the perilous situation in the Middle East today. The JCPOA was the result of a sustained campaign of principled, effective U.S. diplomacy. President Obama began laying groundwork for this nuclear deal as soon as he came to office in 2009. His view—shared then and now across the U.S. political spectrum—was that the U.S. cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran. At the time, Iran claimed that its nuclear energy program was for exclusively peaceful uses. Yet given evidence of Iran's past interest in possessing a nuclear bomb prior to 2003, the U.S. could not take this claim at face value. To get the nuclear deal, Obama and his national security team rallied the world to increase pressure on Tehran. The U.S., E.U., and other allies put in place punishing sanctions. The U.N. Security Council followed suit with a fresh round of sanctions in June 2010 that were wide-ranging and targeted the nuclear program. These sanctions worked: they convinced Iran to come to the negotiating table. To iron out the technical provisions of a deal, the U.S. then put together a team of top career diplomats, nuclear scientists, lawyers, and sanctions experts. It was a remarkable lineup of American patriots and professionals. It was my great honor to serve on that team. Our goal was to offer Iran phased and reversible sanctions relief in exchange for far-reaching limits on Iran's nuclear activities. To maximize leverage, we coordinated with other countries, including not just European allies but also Russia and China. It was difficult, exacting, high-stakes work—for months on end. The effort paid off. Iran agreed to substantial limits on its nuclear activities, including to export out of the country around 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile. Iran's commitments were then subject to intrusive and permanent international monitoring. By the end of the Obama Administration, the deal was working, with all sides implementing their commitments. Trump's abrupt withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 led to the predictable result: Iran's nuclear program surged ahead, breaking free of the deal's constraints. When Trump returned to office in January, he launched a hasty effort to negotiate a new deal. But it bore a striking resemblance to the deal negotiated by Obama, with one nuclear expert calling the Trump framework a 'dollar store JCPOA.' Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tanked these talks with airstrikes on June 12. The U.S. launched its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22. Trump seems convinced the matter is now resolved. But what will be the fate of the tons of enriched uranium that Iran stockpiled after Trump withdrew from the JCPOA? How much Iranian nuclear infrastructure remains intact? Will Iran ever welcome back intrusive international monitoring of its nuclear activities, such as specified in the JCPOA? To resolve these questions, the Trump Administration will need to do the tedious, difficult work of pursuing complex negotiations. Talks look set to resume next week. But it will require a high level of technical expertise and diplomatic capacity. And the timing couldn't be worse, as Trump and Elon Musk's culture war on the so-called 'Deep State' has hollowed out and demoralized the ranks of government experts whose support was critical to achieving the JCPOA in the first place. This sad saga has reminded me of what we've lost in the Trump era. The JCPOA was a product of effective and principled American diplomacy, undertaken in close coordination with our closest allies. It was a team effort by countless government professionals and specialists, all motivated by patriotism and a sense of mission, and operating in an era where they were celebrated not denigrated. It was a victory of dialogue and diplomacy over bluster and bombs. Ten years ago that approach delivered results for the American people and the world. I worry about what comes next.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- Politics
- First Post
From proxy war to direct conflict: New strategic era in West Asia
The resilience of the Iranian regime, despite internal opposition and relentless external pressures, suggests that sudden or externally driven regime change is unlikely. Instead, such pressures could strengthen hardliners or provoke a more radical response read more The twelve-day war between Iran and Israel and the direct bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the US dramatically ended in a fragile ceasefire – as usual announced by President Trump. In West Asia a direct war between Tel Aviv and Tehran has mostly been seen with the deepest concern, and everyone hoped the inevitable would not happen as the two rivals continued to suffer from Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) syndrome. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, the worst has been averted, and all sides have claimed victory in the bargain as the existential threat matrix remains robust. It is perhaps a matter of time that the two will try to decimate the other in a clandestine or a direct confrontation. This time round, even though not a very major destruction of Iran's nuclear programme may not have taken place, surely it may have set back its enrichment capability to some extent. Hopefully, Tehran and Washington will resume talks on the 'Trumpian Deal' in lieu of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had been interrupted by Israeli strikes and the decapitation of Iranian military and nuclear leadership. Iran retaliated strongly and even avenged the US strikes by hitting, even if symbolically, at their Al-Udaid base in Qatar. Doha played a remarkable role in the ensuing ceasefire. The escalating conflict between Iran and Israel ignited a deeply concerning regional crisis with far-reaching multidimensional geopolitical and economic ramifications. What commenced as a prolonged, simmering rivalry violently erupted into direct military confrontations. This has inevitably drawn in external powers and cast an ominous shadow over the stability of the Middle East. It is useful to examine the current instances of ceasefire violations, discuss the significant role of US involvement in shaping its direction, and assess the impact on Iran's nuclear programme and strategic capabilities. Break down the effects on global oil prices and the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, and highlight the actions and motivations of various external players. Also explore the repercussions for neighbouring Gulf states, and finally, consider the uncertain possibility of regime change in Iran. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The situation developed quickly, marked by a dangerous cycle of direct military escalation. It is apparent that there is an increase in hostilities, with the United States openly joining Israel's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear program. This unprecedented military effort, known as 'Operation Midnight Hammer' by the US, involved a major air assault that commenced on June 13, 2025, followed by coordinated strikes on June 21, 2025. These actions represent a significant shift from earlier, secretive operations to open, large-scale military intervention. They involved advanced B-2 bombers and powerful 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators targeting Iran's underground nuclear sites. In response, Iran quickly launched its retaliatory actions, resulting in escalating violence. This ongoing cycle demonstrated a deeply rooted pattern of hostility, pushing the region closer to the brink of a large-scale war. The airstrikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure in June 2025 are not isolated. They reflect a profound intervention with serious implications for regional stability and global security. The current situation suggests intensification of the conflict rather than a clear path to de-escalation, as both sides remain committed to asserting their strength through military means. 'Peace through Strength' appears to be the dictum. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Amid rising tensions, attempts to reduce conflict through diplomacy and ceasefires have proven fragile and largely ineffective. On June 24, 2025, it was revealed that, despite a ceasefire agreement slated to start, both Israel and Iran continued to fight with no decrease in intensity. Global figures, like US President Donald Trump, expressed strong disapproval, accusing both parties of violating the ceasefire and calling for immediate tension reduction. This consistent disregard for peace efforts highlights deep mistrust, conflicting strategic goals, and a lack of reconciliation that fuels this ongoing conflict. The military and political goals of both sides currently seem to overshadow any genuine interest in lasting peace, favouring confrontation over a temporary truce. US involvement is shaping the conflict significantly, turning what began as a regional issue into a potential international crisis. The US military's direct strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites as part of 'Operation Midnight Hammer' mark a critical shift from previous, often indirect actions. This aggressive stance aims to weaken Iran's nuclear capabilities permanently and possibly alter the regime's long-term strategy. While these strikes could pressure Iran to negotiate, they also pose the risk of sparking a broader, more destructive conflict with widespread consequences. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The United States is navigating a delicate balance, trying to deter Iran's aggressive actions while avoiding a full-blown war. This balance becomes riskier with each military action taken. The partnership between the US and Israel affects the conflict's intensity, geographic scope, and ultimate resolution. Every decision made carries significant weight for both regional and global stability. Ironically, everyone, including Iran, doesn't want a nuclear bomb. Iran's nuclear program has consistently been a primary target of intensified military operations. Early assessments after the US and Israeli strikes indicate serious damage to three key nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Natanz, recognised as Iran's largest uranium enrichment centre, reportedly suffered major damage to its above-ground electrical substation and its pilot fuel enrichment facility. Fordow, designed to be heavily fortified and buried, was bombed, causing extensive destruction and visible smoke. Isfahan, suspected of possibly holding near weapons-grade nuclear fuel, also faced direct US missile strikes, leading to the destruction of buildings at the site. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These orchestrated attacks aimed to significantly hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions. If successful, 'Operation Midnight Hammer' could stop Iran from increasing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium or enriching existing stockpiles to weapons-grade levels. However, it has been observed that Iran already has enough uranium to make up to nine nuclear bombs, which means it still has the materials to create nuclear weapons. The longer the location of this highly enriched uranium stockpile remains unknown, the greater the risk of proliferation and global anxiety. Concerns persist about potential nuclear fallout and the risk of strikes igniting explosions that spread nuclear materials, raising health and environmental worries. Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear program despite these strikes, signalling that destroying facilities may not be enough to disrupt its strategic goals. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) inability to effectively monitor Iran's uranium stockpile, combined with its confirmation of serious structural damage but no immediate release of radiation, adds to global concerns about nuclear proliferation and complicates the oversight of nuclear materials. The Iranian Parliament had passed a bill to suspend funding and cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of a partisan attitude. It even threatened to reconsider Iran's membership of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The escalating conflict has had immediate and significant effects on global oil prices, creating volatility in international markets. The targeting of Iranian assets and heightened geopolitical tensions have pushed Brent crude prices above $80 per barrel after the US strikes. These prices have remained elevated, fluctuating in the $70-$78 range, significantly above pre-escalation levels. The potential for the conflict to expand or for Iranian oil exports to stop entirely due to blockades could drive Brent crude prices to $90 per barrel and higher throughout 2026. The worst-case scenario would be the total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint. If that happened, Brent crude prices could soar to $130 per barrel. This illustrates the fragile nature of global energy markets amid Middle Eastern instability. Any significant disruption in supply from a major producer like Iran has immediate and severe economic consequences that spread worldwide, affecting transportation to manufacturing costs. The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, playing a vital role in global oil and LNG markets. The ongoing conflict poses a serious risk to exports moving through this crucial route. Although commercial traffic continues, the threat to global energy and maritime interests remains high if the conflict escalates. Iran's ability to export around 2.2 million barrels of oil per day through Hormuz underscores its strategic importance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Any major obstruction or a complete closure of the Strait, even temporarily, would have catastrophic effects on global energy security and economic health, prompting widespread contingency planning and panic across major oil-consuming nations. The impact on the global economy if this lifeline were cut could lead to an energy crisis and a severe economic downturn. External players are navigating this unpredictable landscape with varying degrees of involvement and concern. Russia, for example, aims to maintain good relations with all parties, seeing the conflict as fluid and likely to change. Its partnership with Iran does not require military intervention in Tehran's defence, but Russia is genuinely worried about a pro-Western shift or regime collapse in Iran, given its broader geopolitical interests. Russia wants to benefit from fluctuating oil prices and arms sales but is reluctant to commit militarily. China, another major external actor, consistently calls for de-escalation through diplomatic means but has largely remained non-committal. It prioritises its significant economic ties with all parties, including vital energy imports from the region. Gulf countries, Iran's immediate neighbours who feel the brunt of regional instability, have publicly avoided condemning US actions while not explicitly supporting them. Instead, they are trying to navigate a delicate path to minimise the conflict's impact on their territories and economies. Their actions reflect a deep concern for regional stability and a desire to avoid deeper involvement in a potentially devastating conflict. The conflict's effects on the Gulf states are substantial, threatening both their economic stability and security. Many of these countries are major oil and gas producers facing direct threats to energy exports and increased maritime insecurity. The potential for regional instability to deter foreign investment and harm their tourism sectors is also significant. Furthermore, rising tensions between Iran and the US-Israel alliance force these nations to reassess their defence strategies, strengthen security, and rethink long-standing diplomatic ties. Although they publicly seek to stay neutral, immense pressure on their security and economic interests compels them to recalibrate their complex relationships with Western powers and an unpredictable Iran. The fear of being caught in the crossfire of a larger conflict is a constant anxiety that shapes their strategic choices, pushing them to respond quickly to a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. Finally, the possibility of regime change in Iran remains a complex and uncertain issue. The recent US strikes, aimed at undermining Iran's nuclear capabilities, also intend to put pressure on the Iranian regime from within. Economic challenges in Iran are adding to existing domestic unrest, reflected in projected GDP decline, high unemployment, and rising inflation. The hints of Iranian regime change and reduced missile stockpiles further weakened the regime's military standing. While the US may wish to alter Iran's path, history shows that external interventions rarely lead to desired political changes and often result in unexpected consequences. The resilience of the Iranian regime, despite internal opposition and relentless external pressures, suggests that sudden or externally driven regime change is unlikely. Instead, such pressures could strengthen hardliners or provoke a more radical response. Israel needed to be reined in from indulging in the assassination of the supreme leader by President Trump, who in any case passed on the military authority to the Revolutionary Guards and identified his successor. This would have led to a major challenge. For the time being, the fragile peace and ceasefire are holding on as the Gazans once again face the wrath of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). With various external powers pursuing their interests, the Gulf states must deal with the direct fallout of increased regional instability and uncertainty. A constant united international response is essential to ease tensions and stop the region from falling into a catastrophic war, which would have unimaginable global effects. Even if it was a fixed match, Tehran will have to reassure its Gulf partners of its true intent, as sovereignty violations are taken very seriously. Qatar said that these attacks on US bases there have left a 'scar' in their relations with Tehran. Anil Trigunayat is a distinguished Fellow at Vivekananda International Foundation and Vedika Znwar is a researcher in international relations and geo-politics. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
The Intercept
a day ago
- Politics
- The Intercept
Who's the Real Bully of the Middle East?
A tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran announced Monday appears to be holding. President Donald Trump made the announcement after unilaterally dragging the U.S. into the conflict and authorizing strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites using 30,000-pound bunker busters. Israel attacked Iran on June 13, just days before Iran and the U.S. were set to resume talks in Oman over the country's nuclear enrichment program. ' You don't have to be anti-war to understand that diplomacy in this case would've been better,' said Hooman Majd, an Iranian American writer and the author of three books on Iran. Majd is a contributor to NBC News and covered the 2015 Iran deal for the network. This week on The Intercept Briefing, Majd joins host Akela Lacy to discuss what's left of the path to diplomacy after years of sabotage, from Israel's aggressive military posture to Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. The deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aimed to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons development. Majd says that the incentive structure of the deal included increasing transparency, access, and inspections of Iran's nuclear sites and reintegrating the country back into the global economy: What 'Obama recognized was, 'Look, if you guys make this deal with us, your incentive to not build a bomb is very clear. … Inflation will go down. Your people will be happier. The economy won't be suffering the way it is. Sanctions will be lifted. You'll make money from oil sales. We'll have international companies coming and investing in Iran.' In 2018, during his first term, Trump pulled out of the agreement and now, after authorizing military strikes, has obliterated what little trust remained. 'The problem here is that with the Trump administration having once withdrawn from the nuclear deal that was working, and having now agreed to Israel attacking Iran, and then attacking Iran itself — there's no trust in diplomacy anymore on the Iranian side, and that's understandable,' says Hooman. Trump is reportedly set to resume talks with Iran next week. But will the ceasefire hold — given that Israel has repeatedly broken its own truces with other countries, and Trump's own volatility? Is a diplomatic solution still possible? Majd says it may take leaning more into Trump's personal ambitions, 'The only way it could be over, and this is unlikely, is that the U.S. under President Trump makes a deal that makes Mr. Trump, very happy, puts him along the path to his Nobel Peace Prize. And he, who's the only one right now, can prevent Israel from attacking Iran again.' You can hear the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
India.com
a day ago
- Politics
- India.com
Trust Under Fire: The World Watches Iran's Next Move
On June 25th, US President Donald Trump boldly declared that American and Israeli strikes may have wiped out Iran's nuclear program. 'We destroyed the nuclear,' he said, suggesting there's nothing more to demand from Iran—except a promise never to build nuclear weapons again. But not everyone is convinced. While Iran's nuclear infrastructure has clearly suffered serious damage, experts warn that it's too early to say the program is fully dismantled. Reports indicate that some facilities may still be intact. This uncertainty, if not addressed quickly, could grow into a far bigger problem. Despite the damage, Iran still seems to control a stockpile of highly enriched uranium. If enriched further, this material could be used to build several nuclear bombs. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has acknowledged the risk and promised that Washington will act in the coming weeks—starting with talks that may soon resume with Tehran. President Trump insists that no new nuclear deal is needed. But the reality is more complicated. Real peace and long-term stability require smart diplomacy. Only through open discussions and strong verification can the world be sure about what nuclear capabilities Iran may still have. Iran's earlier strategy was to stay close to nuclear weapon capability without crossing the line—hoping it would prevent attacks. That strategy now lies in ruins. The recent strikes didn't just hit nuclear facilities; they also targeted military and political sites. This could push Iran to actually pursue nuclear weapons in secret. If that happens, Iran may avoid using big, well-known sites like Natanz or Fordow. Instead, it might choose small, hidden locations—harder to detect, even with advanced spy tools. Iran already has the ingredients: enriched uranium, high-tech centrifuges, and trained experts. Rebuilding its program could take months, not years. Even if Iran chooses not to restart its weapons program, the world must stay alert. Years of careful monitoring, funding, and cooperation will be needed to make sure nuclear ambitions don't quietly return. Iran's past record of hiding its activities adds to the challenge. Winning back global trust won't be easy. Making things harder is Iran's worsening relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the world body that oversees peaceful use of nuclear technology. In the past, the IAEA played a crucial role in enforcing the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). That deal gave inspectors access to key Iranian sites—some of which have now been destroyed. Tensions with the IAEA didn't begin with the recent war. In 2018, when the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA, Iran was still in compliance. But after that, Tehran began rolling back its own commitments. By 2021, it had stopped following the 'Additional Protocol,' which allowed IAEA inspectors deeper access. Most special monitoring measures under the JCPOA were also shut down. Despite limited access, the IAEA continued some inspections and found that Iran's nuclear program was growing more advanced. But Iran's refusal to cooperate pushed the IAEA's Board of Governors to declare, on June 12, that Tehran had violated its global commitments. The next day, Israel launched its military campaign. U.S. officials cited the IAEA report to justify their strikes. Even during the conflict, the IAEA urged Iran to remain in contact with its emergency team. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi reminded the U.N. Security Council: 'Nuclear sites and materials must not be hidden or put at risk during war.' Now that the guns have fallen silent, the big question is: what role can the IAEA still play? Iran is still a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires it to report all nuclear sites and allow inspections under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. But the future of cooperation looks uncertain. Iran is angry. Its leaders feel the world didn't do enough to protect its nuclear sites. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has openly criticised the international community. Senior advisor Ali Larijani even warned the IAEA chief: 'Once the war ends, we will deal with Grossi.' Iran has already announced that it will stop sharing certain information with the IAEA. Its parliament has passed a bill calling for a complete halt to cooperation. In the days ahead, global leaders must tread carefully. It's important to understand Iran's genuine concerns and political pressures—without letting them become excuses for restarting a secret weapons program. The line between frustration and manipulation is thin and dangerous. Talks between the U.S. and Iran are expected soon. One of the top priorities should be restoring verification measures. The world needs to know what equipment, material, and expertise Iran still has—and whether these could be used to rebuild the nuclear program. A similar crisis happened after the first Gulf War, when Iraq gave up its nuclear plans but kept blocking inspectors. The world was never fully sure if Iraq had truly stopped, leading to years of doubt and foreign intervention. That approach didn't bring peace—and we must not repeat that mistake with Iran. If we want lasting peace, not just a pause between crises, countries must work together through international agreements and transparent systems. Recent events have shown the power of U.S. and Israeli intelligence—but also the risk of relying only on secret reports, which can be misread or misused. Rebuilding trust with Iran will be hard. But without cooperation and clear rules, the next crisis will be harder to prevent—and nearly impossible to stop once it begins.
