With Donald Trump back in the White House and his administration swiftly reinstating the “maximum pressure” campaign, Iran has firmly rejected any possibility of engaging in negotiations under such coercion. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently stated that Tehran will not participate in any diplomatic talks if Washington continues its pressure tactics, emphasizing that the previous “maximum pressure” approach failed and only strengthened Iran’s resistance. From Tehran’s perspective, negotiating under duress would be a strategic mistake, reinforcing its belief that the United States is not a reliable partner. With the diplomatic door effectively shut, Iran is advancing its nuclear program and strengthening regional partnerships to counter American pressure. The question is no longer whether Iran will return to the JCPOA, but whether continued pressure from the Trump administration will push it toward developing nuclear weapons.
As a sanctions-heavy strategy might further weaken Iran’s economy, historical evidence suggests that economic pressure alone compels adversaries to change course. But, such measures may also intensify hostility, encouraging Iran to strengthen its nuclear program in defiance. This escalation would complicate diplomatic negotiations and increase the risks of prolonged tensions, with potential ripple effects on global energy security—making it even harder to achieve a lasting and effective resolution.
Iran has long maintained that its nuclear activities fall within the legal framework of the IAEA and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), particularly under Article IV, which guarantees the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Tehran insists that its uranium enrichment program serves civilian needs, including energy production and critical medical applications such as radiopharmaceuticals for cancer treatment. However, the dual-use nature of nuclear technology has fueled persistent Western concerns that Iran’s enrichment capabilities could be diverted toward military applications. Since 2019, Iran has been steadily increasing its uranium enrichment beyond the JCPOA’s 3.67% limit, reaching 60% purity—just short of weapons-grade levels. With the Trump administration refusing to ease sanctions or engage in diplomacy, Iran now sees no incentive to cap its nuclear progress, further reducing the time required to produce weapons-grade material if it chooses to do so.
The roots of this crisis can be traced back to 2018, when Trump first abandoned the JCPOA despite Iran’s full compliance, citing concerns over Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional proxy activities—issues that were never included in the original agreement. By unilaterally withdrawing and imposing economic sanctions, the US weakened its credibility and reinforced Iran’s skepticism toward Western-led diplomatic initiatives. Now, with Trump doubling down on his pressure campaign, Tehran has adopted a strategy of resistance, leveraging its nuclear advancements as a means of deterrence and strengthening economic and military ties with Russia and China to circumvent US sanctions.
The risk of military escalation has thus increased. Israel has openly threatened preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, and with US backing, the likelihood of a regional conflict is growing. Tehran has repeatedly warned that any attack on its nuclear facilities would provoke a swift and forceful response, potentially dragging the entire Middle East into a broader confrontation. Iran, which has historically maintained that it does not seek nuclear weapons, may now conclude that acquiring them is the only way to ensure its survival. The logic of deterrence suggests that if Iran faces existential threats, its nuclear posture will continue to evolve.
Meanwhile, regional actors such as Pakistan have voiced concerns over the escalation, urging a fair and balanced approach to reviving the JCPOA. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Muhammad Ishaq Dar, recently convened a meeting at the United Nations, warning against military threats to Iran and emphasizing the importance of equitable diplomacy to prevent further destabilization. His remarks highlight a broader regional sentiment against external coercion and underscore the risks of allowing the current impasse to deepen.
As the Trump administration continues its hardline stance, the international community finds itself at a decisive crossroads. The reimposition of the “maximum pressure” campaign, without any credible diplomatic outreach, has already led to a sharp escalation in tensions, with Iran accelerating its nuclear program and reducing its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). If Washington remains fixated on unilateral pressure rather than diplomacy, it risks not only further isolating Tehran but also forcing it into a position where nuclearization becomes a strategic necessity rather than a choice. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly stated that it does not seek nuclear weapons, yet history has shown that when states perceive an existential threat—especially in the face of sustained economic and military pressure—they often reassess their strategic options. The longer Iran remains cornered without a viable diplomatic off-ramp, the higher the likelihood that it will move toward developing a nuclear deterrent.
The alternative is a diplomatic approach that acknowledges Iran’s security concerns and treats it as an equal negotiating partner rather than an adversary to be subdued. This would require a serious recalibration of US policy, shifting from punitive measures to engagement based on mutual interests. The reality is that a nuclear-armed Iran would not only pose significant challenges to US and Israeli security calculations but could also trigger a regional arms race, with countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey seeking their own nuclear capabilities in response. The consequences of such a scenario would be far-reaching, undermining global non-proliferation efforts and increasing the risk of military confrontations in an already volatile region. If Washington truly aims to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, it must abandon its one-dimensional strategy of coercion and reinvest in diplomacy before the window for de-escalation closes entirely. The choice is clear: either pursue a pragmatic diplomatic solution now or confront a nuclear-capable Iran with all the unpredictable consequences that would entail.
Authors
Ms. Maryyum Masood is a Research Officer and Associate Editor at the Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS), Islamabad.
Amna Saqib is a Research Officer and Assistant Editor at the Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS), Islamabad.
