Middle East's Nuclear Hourglass: Tehran's Choices And Washington's Red Lines

Instead of stabilising, tensions in the Middle East are escalating by the day. The region's two most entrenched rivals-Iran and Israel-are hardening their positions, raising fears of the emergence of a new and dangerous front.

According to the recent statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the country has launched an operation, 'Rising Lion', overnight against Iran's nuclear facilities, a move that could deliver a deadly surprise to Tehran. Previously, Washington had voiced concern over Israel's intentions, signalling anxiety about an operation that could plunge the region into a broader conflict. The United States had even extended a fresh offer to Tehran to resume nuclear negotiations, marking what would be the sixth such round, and had expressed hope for a constructive outcome.

Nevertheless, the US's approach stood in sharp contrast to the Trump administration's hardline stance during its first term, when Washington not only imposed severe sanctions on Iran in 2018 but also authorised the targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Then, the US stood at the epicentre of the standoff. Now, ironically, it is urging restraint while its ally Israel takes centre stage in the confrontation. It appears that the players have switched roles.

At the heart of the matter lies Iran's nuclear capability. Western governments, along with Israel and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), argue that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Middle East and neighbouring regions.

In a significant development, the IAEA's Board of Governors has, for the first time in nearly two decades, formally accused Iran of violating its nonproliferation obligations, bringing the issue closer to the United Nations Security Council. The agency warns that Iran could enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels at any moment, effectively crossing the nuclear threshold. This was voiced in the recent statement of Netanyahu, in which he mentioned the nascent threat of nuclear holocaust in and around the region.

In this scenario, the US appears to be leaning toward diplomacy, while Israel, its closest regional partner, plays the role of enforcer. Now, Tel Aviv shows its clear stance with a sharp military strike. US President Donald Trump has refrained from explicitly endorsing an attack but has left the door open to negotiations.

This leaves Iran with a critical decision: accept the US proposal for renewed talks, or brace for a potentially devastating Israeli offensive.

However, it's difficult to imagine Tehran readily accepting any Western proposal. Still, for Iran's leadership, this may be a moment worth pausing for reflection. What lies at stake is not merely political standing, but the growing spectre of nuclear war in an increasingly fragile world order. Acting unilaterally without regard for regional neighbours risks isolating Iran even further.

The most viable strategy remains at the negotiating table.

Tehran knows all too well what's at stake. Any deal will likely require Iran to scale back its nuclear ambitions, withdraw support for its proxy forces in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, and concede space for Arab powers to exert greater influence in the region. For Iran, whose ideology often clashes with Sunni Arab governments and includes strong anti-Israel and anti-Western sentiment, such concessions are politically toxic. Tehran has frequently labelled any party entering compromise as“traitors.”

Although Iran recently agreed to curb Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, the long-term sustainability of that agreement is highly questionable. Should Israel launch an attack and the region spiral into conflict, the Houthis will almost certainly rearm and resume hostilities, with financial and military backing from Tehran.

A renewed escalation in the Red Sea, one of the world's most vital commercial arteries, would likely disrupt global supply chains, drive up oil and commodity prices, and inflict economic damage far beyond the Middle East.

At the same time, Hezbollah's relative quiet in Lebanon may not last. Should Israel act decisively, Hezbollah, emboldened and supported by Iran, will almost certainly retaliate, triggering a chain reaction with wide-reaching consequences.

In sum, the region stands at a precipice. Whether it slips into war or retreats into diplomacy may come down to a single factor: how much patience remains on either side of the divide.

MENAFN13062025000195011045ID1109669120