As nuclear negotiations resume between Iran and Western powers, it is essential to distinguish between the West’s strategic priorities and its political preferences. If the core objective is to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, then the approach must be disciplined and narrowly focused. Broader goals—such as curbing Iran’s regional influence or transforming its domestic politics—may be desirable to some, but pursuing them simultaneously with denuclearization risks undermining both.
It is a common analytical error to bundle together Iran’s nuclear file, its regional posture, and its internal governance. While interrelated, these issues are not interchangeable. Attempting to resolve them all in one package often produces diplomatic overreach and weakens the chances of concrete, verifiable outcomes on the most urgent front: nuclear containment.
Iran, for its part, has demonstrated a strategic—not irrational—approach to diplomacy. Its leadership seeks guarantees, continuity, and respect for national sovereignty. From Tehran’s perspective, the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) significantly eroded trust in the durability of Western commitments. Any new agreement must address this credibility gap if it is to unlock longer-term economic cooperation and stability.
For that reason, a viable deal must extend beyond technical limits on uranium enrichment. It must also offer a durable economic framework, including transparent, long-term investment channels, protections against arbitrary sanctions snapback, and sovereign-backed infrastructure investments that are long-term in nature. It was the lack of these that obstructed European industrial investment at the time of the JCPOA.
Consider the example of Iran’s civil aviation sector. Despite having a similar population and geographic size to Turkey, Iran maintains a fleet of fewer than 250 passenger aircraft, compared to Turkey’s 1,500. Years of sanctions have left the Iranian air infrastructure in urgent need of renewal. The right investment architecture—carefully vetted, internationally monitored, and politically insulated—will yield investment flows into Iran that bring both economic dividends and geopolitical stability.
Such a structure would not only invite Western capital but also draw in Gulf and Asian participation, creating shared stakes in regional de-escalation and trust instead of nurturing Iran’s understandable misgivings about how the JCPOA results failed to deliver any results.
Furthermore, calls for regime change tend to be counterproductive. They harden positions within Iran’s political establishment and complicate diplomacy. A more pragmatic path lies in rewarding compliance and moderation with tangible outcomes, rather than setting preconditions that remove incentives for compromise.
Iran remains a regional power under strain, maybe, but not on the verge of collapse. It retains both the influence and the technical capability to escalate, if it chooses. This is precisely why now is the right time to pursue a narrowly focused, verifiable deal that reduces risk and builds a platform for longer-term engagement.
The international community faces a choice: manage the nuclear risk pragmatically, or allow misplaced political short-sightedness to obstruct progress. The opportunity exists. But it must be met with clarity of purpose and discipline of scope.
By the ACL Analysis Team | April 14, 2025