The complex and long-running dispute between Iran and Western countries—particularly the United States and the European Troika (Germany, France and the UK)—which began in 2003 and led in 2015 to the signing of the JCPOA nuclear agreement in Lausanne, Switzerland, ultimately came to a deadlock with the activation of the “snapback” mechanism on September 26, effectively collapsing the deal. The automatic consequence of this decision is the reimposition of the six Security Council sanctions resolutions passed between 2006 and 2010.
Responsibility for Fleeing Diplomacy Lies with the West
Despite all the efforts and initiatives made by Iran and other global powers such as China and Russia, Western countries did not return to diplomacy, and a new deadlock emerged in their long-running dispute with Iran over its peaceful nuclear program. This move, particularly after the Western parties showed no willingness to continue talks, was perceived as a deliberate act against Iran.
At various stages, Iran, by showing readiness to return to the negotiating table and by offering diverse proposals to continue the diplomatic path, sought to prove that its inclination toward talks was rooted in positive will, not in weakness. Yet at this juncture, it appears that the will of Western parties to maintain the diplomatic track has greatly diminished.
The undeniable reality is that responsibility for abandoning diplomacy and shutting down the talks rests squarely with European countries and the United States. At the very least, over the past year, in the new round of diplomacy under the fourteenth administration, Iran continued the negotiation track with the mediation of states such as Qatar and Egypt. While Iran was still trying to keep diplomatic avenues open as a forward-looking option in its foreign policy, Western countries—largely for reasons tied to their own domestic and foreign policies—not only refrained from returning to the talks but also expanded the scope of economic and political pressures against Iran. This behavior reflects a unilateral and narrow-minded approach that essentially diverges from the principle of respect for international commitments.
Therefore, under these new circumstances, Iran must openly hold the West responsible for this diplomatic failure and defend the fact that it has remained on the path of diplomacy.
A Strategic Error: Deflecting Responsibility from the West onto Domestic Forces
One of the worst and most dangerous reactions under these conditions is the attempt to deflect blame and attribute responsibility for the diplomatic deadlock to domestic forces. Indeed, one of the greatest political mistakes at this juncture would be to link the diplomatic failure to internal currents and domestic politicking.
This does not mean overlooking the destructive actions of certain hardliners within the country’s political scene. But numerous pieces of evidence indicate that the West had from the outset planned to reach the point it did on Friday, when it formally declared the end of negotiations.
The pressures exerted on Iran by the United States and European countries not only contravened the spirit of earlier agreements but also represented a gradual, sequential process designed to escape the deal and bring the talks to a dead end. Therefore, under present circumstances, responsibility for this deadlock should not be laid on domestic forces. Such a stance not only distorts the truth but also indirectly undermines public trust in domestic institutions and national will.
Instead of this destructive approach, in the absence of diplomacy and given the current threats, effective steps must be taken to strengthen national resolve and prepare for potentially difficult days ahead. This process requires synergy among all branches and capacities of the country, so that the deadlock can be turned into a strategic opportunity for growth and the strengthening of internal power in all its dimensions—economic, social, political, defensive, and more. Officials and media in the country must actively work to bolster national spirit and domestic solidarity, and by providing accurate and fair information, make the people aware of the consequences of this situation. This is the best path toward realizing the aspiration of a “Strong Iran”—an aspiration that can mend and overcome the strategic and historical solitude Iran has endured.
In this regard, empowerment across diverse fields—including politics, economy, technology, defense and military, and culture—must be treated as a key strategy. It must be made clear, firmly and transparently, that Iran has pursued diplomacy not from weakness but from strength. Policies to enhance internal capabilities—such as strengthening the resistant economy, developing advanced technologies, and building stronger networks with independent states, especially in the region—can serve as the foundation of Iran’s foreign policy in the post-diplomacy era.
Rebuilding Faith in Diplomacy for the Future
Although the current situation may suggest a kind of relative failure in diplomacy, one should not reach the conclusion that diplomacy is altogether dead. In the long run, and in light of global policy shifts, there remains the possibility of returning to negotiations and working toward a sustainable agreement.
To make this possible, Iran must demonstrate its capabilities in multiple domains, especially economic, security and defense, so that it can present its demands while maintaining a position of strength.
It is essential that everyone recognize that Iran’s insistence on continuing negotiations has always stemmed from a strategic and rational stance, not from inability or weakness. Thus, the Islamic Republic of Iran, alongside reinforcing national will, must adopt new ways to showcase its strength vis-à-vis Western countries, while at the same time taking practical steps toward rebuilding trust in diplomacy.
NOURNEWS