The Iranian nuclear program began in the 1950s with Western support but came under scrutiny after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The crisis reached its peak during Donald Trump's presidency.

Israeli airstrikes on Iran's heartland have brought a dangerous twist to Middle Eastern geopolitics and the already precarious global order. These attacks penetrated deep into Iran, targeting key nuclear facilities from Tehran and Natanz to Isfahan and Tabriz, resulting in the deaths of senior scientists and commanders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that these strikes were crucial to stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. However, this rationale appears more like a strategic move aimed at undermining diplomatic engagement and escalating confrontation. In reality, it reflects an attempt to deliberately sabotage diplomacy, exacerbate tensions, and reshape the balance of power through force. These attacks were not unavoidable; they demonstrate Israel's willingness to abandon negotiations, disregard international norms, and act without regard for consequences.

The core of this escalating crisis lies with U.S. President Donald Trump. During his first term in 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This painstakingly negotiated agreement aimed to constrain Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. At the time, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iran's compliance. Trump's decision was more about domestic posturing and ideological retribution than strategic logic, reopening the path to nuclear escalation. He replaced diplomacy with "maximum pressure"—sanctions, oil embargoes, and public threats—setting the tone for years of hostility.

In his second term, Trump restarted talks with Iran but continued to use coercive measures, weakening negotiations. Despite his administration's ambiguous signals on allowable uranium enrichment levels, Iran perceived Washington's approach as insincere. The Trump administration issued contradictory statements—publicly insisting on zero enrichment while reportedly considering low-enriched uranium thresholds in private negotiations. This contradiction reinforced Iran's belief that the U.S. was not interested in a fair agreement but rather in surrender.

The background of Iran's nuclear program provides critical context. Launched in the 1950s with Western backing, it came under scrutiny after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran's secrecy and limited cooperation with the IAEA heightened concerns over its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, Iran has consistently maintained its intentions are peaceful. The JCPOA aimed to provide an accountability framework backed by unprecedented verification mechanisms. Trump rejected this framework, leaving a vacuum subsequently exploited by hawks on both sides.

This crisis extends beyond Iran and Israel. It touches on whether the world still believes in rules rather than naked power. As powers become increasingly reckless, military force is replacing diplomacy, and the architecture designed to maintain global order is collapsing. This is not just a regional crisis; it represents a broader test of the resilience of the global order. The world must either rededicate itself to diplomacy, law, and restraint or risk a future shaped by violence and impunity. The next mistake could be irreversible.

Source: Geopolitics

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1835420789208071/

Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views.