YouTube
The world is finally catching up to the fact that Iran is on the verge of going nuclear, but Iran's internal agenda makes negotiations almost impossible.The Iranian regime’s nuclear program has once again become the focal point of international tensions. According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has produced 275 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. This level of enrichment brings Iran dangerously close to the 90% threshold necessary for developing a nuclear weapon.
This development has triggered strong reactions from the United States, the European Union, and the IAEA Board of Governors. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA, warned that the window for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program is rapidly closing. The United Nations Security Council has begun reviewing new sanctions against Tehran. In a joint statement, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany declared, “Our patience has been long, but it is not unlimited.”
The closed-door Security Council meeting (called by the U.S., France, Greece, Panama, South Korea, and Britain), as well as subsequent diplomatic reactions indicate that Iran’s nuclear program has reached a critical juncture. Western countries and international organizations emphasize that Tehran has not only violated nuclear agreements but also poses a direct threat to global security by increasing uranium enrichment levels. Given these circumstances, the likelihood of reimposing international sanctions against the regime is higher than ever.
<img alt captext="YouTube” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iranian-regimes-nuclear-crisis-and-diplomatic-tensions-negotiation-or-confrontation.jpg”>
YouTube screen grab (cropped).
On March 12, 2025, Britain warned that it would trigger the return of U.N. sanctions on Iran, if necessary, to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. As the Security Council met to discuss Tehran’s expansion of its stock of uranium close to weapons-grade, Britain’s Deputy U.N. Ambassador James Kariuki stated, “We are clear that we will take any diplomatic measures to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, including the use of snapback (sanctions), if needed.”
On the same day, the United States formally stated that Iran is becoming increasingly dangerous:
As reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General, Tehran continues to rapidly accelerate its production of highly enriched uranium. It is also the only country in the world without nuclear weapons producing highly enriched uranium, for which it has no credible peaceful purpose.
Moreover, Iran continues to flagrantly defy the Security Council, violate its IAEA safeguards obligations, and ignore the clear and consistent concerns of both the Council and the international community. The Council must be clear and united in addressing and condemning this brazen behavior.
A few days after this statement, Trump explicitly warned Iran to stop funding and directing Houthi attacks on international waters.
What is clear is that mounting international pressure on Tehran, along with the potential reactivation of stringent sanctions—including the triggering of the snapback mechanism—are among the most serious courses of action in the near future.
Amidst this crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Iranian regime, proposing direct negotiations. He promised that sanctions would be eased if Tehran cooperated but warned, “Because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing—for them.”
Additionally, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the U.S. had made halting Iran’s support for regional proxy groups a precondition for any new agreement—a condition he deemed unacceptable for Iran.
In a meeting with the Basij student organization, Khamenei once again stressed that negotiations with the U.S. would not only fail to lift sanctions but would also worsen the situation. His position is that Trump’s demands “will tighten the knot of sanctions and increase pressure on Iran.”
These remarks indicate that, for Khamenei, sitting at the negotiation table is a sign of weakness and capitulation, which would significantly undermine his standing among his inner circle and weaken the regime’s repressive structure. The regime’s greatest fear isn’t that Israel and the U.S. might engage in limited military strikes against nuclear and missile sites but rather that the regime could face a domestic uprising that could challenge its rule.
Khamenei understands that setbacks in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen have weakened its regional influence and diminished its bargaining power in negotiations. To maintain the regime, Khamenei believes that it must project strength—and that achieving nuclear capability ensures the regime’s survival.
Moreover, he worries that entering talks would force Iran to make significant concessions—not only on its nuclear program but also on its ballistic missile capabilities and regional interventions. These concessions, in his view, could undermine the regime’s power structure.
Hassan Rouhani, the former Iranian regime president, takes a different view. He’s warned of a worsening situation, acknowledging the regime’s crisis and the potential for social unrest. He suggested that the Supreme Leader might be open to negotiations under different conditions, but with Khamenei’s firm stance, his words are unlikely to lead anywhere. Rouhani’s concerns highlight the escalating risks of public anger fueled by shortages, inflation, and economic hardship.
Ultimately, Khamenei is trapped in a box. If Iran continues its current trajectory, it faces several serious repercussions, including:
- Tougher sanctions from the U.S. and Europe.
- The possible reactivation of UN sanctions through the snapback mechanism.
- Increased diplomatic pressure and the potential formation of an international coalition against the Iranian regime.
- A military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if it crosses the 90% uranium enrichment threshold.
As international pressure mounts to bring the Iranian regime back to the negotiating table, Khamenei remains in a state of hesitation—he lacks both the capacity for serious negotiations and the military strength for direct confrontation. Instead, he is considering indirect talks with the U.S., primarily as a delaying tactic for domestic consumption and buying time.
However, the ticking clock is against Khamenei and his regime. The choice between negotiation or non-negotiation is a dilemma of life and death. If UN sanctions are reinstated, they will have no choice but to negotiate, and this could signal the downfall of the regime.
Instead of negotiating with a dying regime, the U.S. and Europe should consider designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization, closing the regime’s embassies as nests of espionage and assassination, and recognizing the legitimate alternative of the Iranian people’s resistance for the regime’s overthrow.
