Why war clouds are hovering over the Middle East yet again

While the talks are set to continue — the sixth round of negotiations are scheduled to take place in Muscat on Sunday — the latest, somewhat unexpected development has yet again left a Damocles’ sword hanging over the Middle East.

The trigger

Israel’s vehement opposition to the Iran-US nuclear talks, and its belief that Iran’s vulnerabilities should be exploited with military action against its nuclear sites, is old. But more often than not, this belief has not translated into overt military action.

The latest development is nonetheless alarming given it comes the day the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) Board of Governors declared that Iran was non-compliant with its non-proliferation obligations — a first such resolution in two decades.

While the IAEA has repeatedly warned of Iran’s increasing stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, the latest resolution comes on the back of an IAEA investigative report which assessed that Iran was conducting “secret nuclear activities” at three locations. The Board can now consider another resolution to report Iran’s non-compliance to the UN Security Council.

Broadly, the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran is a party to, obligates non-nuclear weapon states to respect IAEA safeguards agreements. Among the possible ramifications of the IAEA’s report is European states (the UK, France, and Germany) triggering “snap-back sanctions” on Iran, based on provisions of the 2015 nuclear deal (officially, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

This deal, despite the United States’ 2018 pull out, remains alive due to Iranian and European participation on paper. It is set to expire in October.

The IAEA’s resolution, and European reactions to it, have triggered an expectedly hostile reaction from Tehran. Iran, through its UN representative, has now threatened to withdraw from the NPT entirely. Moreover, Iran’s Foreign Ministry and its Atomic Energy Organization jointly declared on Thursday that Iran will now open a new uranium enrichment facility at a “strategically secure site” that will increase Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile “to a great extent”, in response to the IAEA Board’s “politically motivated and biased” resolution.

Note that Iran has long been wary of European snapback sanctions, which will worsen the pressures that Tehran already faces due to existing American sanctions.

Status of n-talks

Since April, the US and Iran have conducted five formal rounds of negotiations aiming for a deal which stops Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief. The last round of talks were held in Rome on May 23.

At present, the biggest sticking point is not whether Iran has a right to nuclear energy (the US agrees that it does), but whether it can enrich uranium to fuel its nuclear power plants, something that, in theory, will also allow it to produce a nuclear weapon with bomb-grade 90% enriched uranium.

Thus far, the US concession to Iran is to allow Tehran to enrich uranium temporarily, before delegating that right to a consortium of regional Arab states and itself which will then provide nuclear fuel to Iran.

Iran has rejected this proposal, with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself condemning it. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday asserted that his country does “not need anyone’s permission to enrich uranium” within its borders.

The Iranian position on the matter has been clear and consistent. Earlier in May, speaking to state-run Tasnim News, Araghchi had said that Iran is prepared to implement confidence building measures and adhere to transparency in exchange for sanctions relief, as long as its rights to enrich uranium within its own sovereign territory is secured.

But this has thus far been a red line for Washington, with Trump deeming Iran’s position “unacceptable”. It is yet unclear whether the US — or Iran — will be willing to budge on the matter. That said, despite hostile rhetoric, neither side has chosen to walk away from the negotiating table, and Tehran continues to court American companies to invest in Iran after a nuclear deal is reached.

Although Arab states support the ongoing negotiations, Israelis have remained hostile to the process. As Netanyahu said on April 8, Tel Aviv will only accept a deal which allows signatories to “go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the (Iranian) equipment, under American supervision with American execution…”.

What now? 

Unlike European countries and the US, Israel technically has no locus standi to impose its own maximal terms on a negotiation it is not party to. Israeli covert and (occasional) overt operations against Iran have contributed to a self-fulfilling cycle of retribution and violence that has dented the already fragile ground on which Tehran and Washington engage with each other.

Given how Iran is locked in its view of Tel Aviv and Washington acting in concert, Iranian officials at the highest levels, including Araghchi, have made it categorically clear that they will hold the US responsible for any Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites. As per the IRGC, this will invite a “devastating and decisive response” on targets including US military infrastructure in the region. In the past, US bases in Iraq have usually been Iran’s first target (through proxy or directly).

This is despite the US repeatedly distancing itself from Israeli attack plans, at least in public. As recently as April, Trump opposed an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and refused to back such an attack.

Israel’s rationale to launch an attack, and effectively sabotage Iran-US negotiations, may also be borne out of domestic imperatives. It is evident that Netanyahu’s domestic troubles have only increased, as European states place unprecedented sanctions on Israeli leaders, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Early on Thursday, Netanyahu by a narrow 63-51 margin survived an attempt in the Knesset to dissolve Parliament and hold early elections. With his coalition under immense pressure, the Israel Prime Minister, as he has often done in the past, has tried to up the heat on Gaza and Iran to justify not holding elections, with his coalition saying that given the war in Gaza and the “Iranian issue”, elections at this time would “paralyse the country”. An Israeli escalation against Iran would provide further weight to this reasoning.

But Israeli threats aside, the IAEA’s report may already have sown seeds of conflict in the region.

Should Iran withdraw from the NPT, it is a near certainty that Iran-US nuclear talks will break down. The United States’ Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1978 will then prevent Washington from offering any concession which it might otherwise be open to.

At present, all the pieces on the board sit with wound up springs. Whether they unwind — and unleash conflict in the region — will depend on how and when the states concerned decide to act: whether Israel proceeds with an attack, Europe implements snap-back sanctions, Iran withdraws from the NPT, or the US withdraws from negotiations.

Bashir Ali Abbas is a Senior Research Associate at the Council for Strategic and Defense Research, New Delhi