Back-channel & Iran nuclear deal

IRAN is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and continues to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Iranian ruling elite frequently reiterates its principled stance to remain a party to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

However, the Iranian uranium enrichment effort and potential ballistic missiles terrify Israel and unease Arab neighbours and the United States.

The significant boosting of US forces in the Middle East, especially several B-2 stealth bombers capable of carrying huge bunker buster bombs, deployment at the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean and President Donald Trump’s recent warning to bomb Iran if Tehran doesn’t reach a new deal with Washington on its nuclear program within two months alarms about the probability of another US-led war in the Arab/Persian Gulf.

Indeed, a nuclear deal is a preferable choice instead of strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Is a nuclear deal doable in the rapidly transforming international geostrategic environment?

The urgency of this question cannot be overstated.

Nukes are gaining significance in the defence policies of various states due to the return of the old predatory style of international politics, which is increasing tensions and state-on-state wars.

Europeans are contemplating the credibility of the Americans’ extended deterrence or positive security guarantees, which have ensured Europe’s defence since the establishment of NATO in 1949.

However, they are now seeking nuclear deterrence with some homegrown nuclear weapons.

Iran seems more confident due to its strategic partnerships with China and Russia.

Beijing and Moscow support nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran based on mutual respect and the end of sanctions against Iran.

On April 4, 2025, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “You know that we are currently working on restoring our relations with the United States, but Iran is also our partner, our ally, with whom we have very developed and multifaceted relations.”

The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities could change Iran’s nuclear policy.

It will exit the NPT and develop and test a nuclear device.

Since the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, in 2018 under the first Trump Administration, Tehran has systematically increased its enriching uranium and bringing the country closer and closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran is now effectively a latent or nuclear threshold state.

Presently, the nuclear non-proliferationists, individuals and organizations dedicated to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, are disconsolated because of the steady weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and modernization of the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear-armed states and increasing aspirants of indigenous nuclear deterrence capability in Europe and Asia.

The impractical attempts were made to create a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

Realistically, it is impossible due to nuclear-armed Israel, which built its first nuclear weapons in 1966 (with a lot of French help) and spiraling strategic rivalry between Tel Aviv and Tehran.

The threatening statement of President Donald Trump to bomb Iran if it doesn’t agree to its nuclear programme has further complicated the situation.

While responding to Trump’s warning, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said, “They will certainly receive a heavy blow in return.

” The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps told Iranian TV, “The US has 10 bases and 50,000 soldiers in the region….

If you live in a glass house, you shouldn’t throw stones.

” Thus, Iran is not caving into the Trump Administration’s military threat and is prepared to retaliate to any military adventure.

The optimistic development is that Trump received Iran’s formal response last week to the letter he sent Khamenei in early March 2025.

Despite the controversy over the mode of negotiations, with Trump proposing direct nuclear negotiations and the Iranians favoring indirect talks mediated by a third party, there is potential for a peaceful resolution.

This stress on the potential for a peaceful resolution should reassure the audience.

Moreover, Iranians view the US recent offer as deceptive and a threat.

Therefore, the Trump Administration must abandon or swap its ‘all-or-nothing absolutism and quick wins’ strategy with back-channel diplomacy, including Russians and Chinese, to rein in Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

The critical examination of JCPOA finalization in July 2015 reveals the conclusive role of a series of back-channel meetings hosted by former Ambassador Prof.

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, Chairman of the Royal Institute of East-West Strategic Studies (RIESS), an Oxford University-affiliated think tank.

(The Times of Israel, November 6, 2013,https://www.timesofisrael.com/former-mk-reportedly-met-with-iranian-general-over-nuclear-issue/) Several confidential meetings took place at von Pfetten’s French chateau from 2013 to 2015, involving top military commanders from Israel, Iran and the P5+1 nations, which include the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom plus Germany.

These back-channel meetings, with the participation of the P5 nations, contributed constructively to constituting a JCPOA.

Instead of trusting sanctions and relying on military threats, the Trump Administration must initiate back-channel diplomatic processes to undertake the Iranian nuclear imbroglio.

The gravity of the situation demands a shift towards diplomacy.

This emphasis on the need for back-channel diplomacy should convince the audience of its effectiveness.

Thus, persuasion and cooperation rather than pressure and threat through back-channel is an effective way to avoid a devastating, looming military conflict in the Middle East.

 

Disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of MEPEI. Any content provided by our author is of his opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything.