Ansarollah Website. Report | Anas Al-Qadi
The nuclear negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran are taking place in an atmosphere of unprecedented military escalation. Washington has deployed aircraft carriers and naval groups to the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean, reinforced its air presence at regional bases, and declared—in aggressive terms—that Tehran has a short deadline to reach an agreement. This buildup has a direct political objective: to impose a negotiating equation in favor of the United States at the expense of Iran—that is, negotiations under the threat of aggression.
Nevertheless, Iran has not withdrawn from the negotiating table. Instead, it has continued indirect talks under the auspices of the Sultanate of Oman in Geneva and announced its readiness to submit a written draft agreement within days. This indicates that Tehran is working to separate the diplomatic negotiation track from the military escalation track, and that it is dealing with the pressure as part of a long-term political battle, not as a reason to sever diplomatic channels. It continues negotiations and diplomatic resistance while simultaneously preparing militarily, taking into account the possibility of American-Zionist aggression, and is ready to respond to such aggression.
US Pressure
The United States demands that Iran halt or reduce uranium enrichment to a very low level that would preclude the development of a nuclear weapon, and that its enriched stockpile be transferred out of the country. It also seeks to include Iran's missile program in the agreement, in addition to addressing Tehran's regional role and its relations with allied powers in the region.
In this sense, the US demand is not limited to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but extends to reshaping Iran's position in the regional balance of power. Ballistic missiles and the network of regional allies are part of Iran's deterrence equation, and therefore, including them in the negotiations effectively means diminishing its power. Hence, Iran believes that the proposed conditions do not only concern the nuclear program, but also goes to the core of its sovereignty and defense capabilities.
The Iranian Position
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is exercising its guaranteed right to uranium enrichment within the framework of international law. It has expressed its willingness to accept extensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to provide technical guarantees confirming that it is not pursuing the production of nuclear weapons. However, it refuses to reduce enrichment to zero or include its missile program in negotiations, considering it an internal defense matter not subject to compromise.
Militarily, Tehran has raised its level of readiness and announced that it will target US bases in the region if attacked. It has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large portion of global oil trade passes. Furthermore, it conducted joint naval exercises with Russia in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, sending a clear message that it possesses deterrent options. These actions aim to establish a principle that any aggression will be met with a painful response, and that the cost of war will not be borne by one side alone.
The Possibility of Military Aggression
It is estimated that any potential US strike would begin by targeting air defenses, nuclear facilities, and some Revolutionary Guard sites, focusing on air and naval operations without a large-scale ground intervention. However, past experiences in Iraq and Libya show that airstrikes do not necessarily lead to decisive political change, but may instead open the door to a prolonged period of instability.
Furthermore, targeting senior leaders or sensitive facilities could provoke a direct or indirect Iranian response, whether by targeting US bases or through Tehran's allies in the region. This means that a limited strike could quickly escalate into a multi-front confrontation. Therefore, European and Gulf states are expressing concern that starting a war is much easier than controlling its outcome, and that any miscalculation could lead to an escalation that would be difficult to contain.
Regional Calculations
"Israel" is preparing for the possibility of joint military action with Washington and believes that the current stalemate may only be broken by direct military pressure. Conversely, the Gulf states fear that war could disrupt energy markets and maritime navigation in the Gulf and the Red Sea, negatively impacting the global economy.
Russia affirms its support for Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology, but is keen to avoid a direct confrontation with the United States. Oman and Qatar continue their mediation efforts and push for the continuation of the negotiating track and the reduction of tension. This balance reflects that any clash will not remain confined to Washington and Tehran, but will affect the region’s security and economic stability.
In summary:
the United States is attempting to impose an agreement that would redraw the balance of power in the region and limit Iran's influence, while Iran is clinging to its sovereign rights and seeking to manage the pressure without making concessions that would compromise its core defense capabilities.
Current indicators suggest that Tehran is banking on diplomatic resilience and raising the cost of any military confrontation, while Washington is using military buildup as leverage to improve its negotiating position. Therefore, the most likely scenario remains a temporary understanding that saves face for both sides and postpones a clash. However, the continued military option and the ongoing threats make the second or third paths possible if mediation fails or if one side miscalculates the limits of power and deterrence.
