Curbing Iran’s Nuclear Ambition: Termed Sanctions

Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long posed a challenge to regional and global security. Despite various negotiations and agreements, Tehran continues to develop its nuclear program while leveraging diplomatic talks to ease economic pressures. This makes the current negotiations critically important, as they could result in either experimental peace or an unpredictable war. The United States presents a compelling case for termed sanctions, arguing that predetermined economic penalties can restore Western leverage and ensure Iran engages in negotiations in good faith, without delays or tactical stalling as in the past.

Traditional sanctions tend to be reactive, imposed after violations rather than as  preventive measures. In contrast, termed sanctions would set clear deadlines, imposing penalties if Iran fails to meet agreed-upon objectives. This approach increases pressure, forcing Iranian leadership into an inevitable choice—comply with diplomatic agreements or risk economic and sovereign collapse. A structured sanction timeline would also prevent Iran from prolonging negotiations without making meaningful commitments.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) initially restricted Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but later sanction relief stabilized its economy without permanently halting its nuclear ambitions. In the following years, Iran repeatedly expanded uranium enrichment beyond acceptable limits, frustrating the international community. Termed sanctions would prevent Iran from exploiting loopholes, ensuring accountability.

Some argue that stringent sanctions may escalate tensions or lead to diplomatic breakdowns, but strategic implementation could mitigate risks by securing allied support, preventing Iran from portraying the sanctions as unilateral aggression through its media outlets. Iran could also avoid sanctions by adhering to verifiable commitments, incentivizing cooperation by balancing economic and diplomatic measures—keeping pressure intact while preventing isolation.

On the other hand, should Iran fail to comply with the nuclear agreement, there could be political, economic, and security consequences at regional and global levels. This includes the reimposition of intensified sanctions, further affecting the oil and banking sectors, exacerbating Iran’s already fragile economy.

Regional tensions would escalate, as Israel, which opposes the agreement and views Iran as a nuclear threat, might resort to military operations or targeting Iranian nuclear facilities—raising a potential military conflict. Gulf states might also adopt more rigid stances than usual.

Iran’s persistent nuclear advancement has alarmed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has noted a lack of transparency in undisclosed nuclear sites. Iran has increased uranium enrichment to 60%, surpassing permitted stockpile limits and bringing it closer to weapons-grade capability, further eroding international trust. While Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, it claims its program is peaceful, citing a fatwa from its Supreme Leader prohibiting nuclear arms as proof!

Failure to cooperate with the IAEA will result in greater diplomatic isolation for Iran, especially with France, Britain, and Germany recently expressing “serious doubts” about Iran’s intentions. This could hinder future negotiations to revive the nuclear deal or create a new agreement. Naturally, intensified sanctions would worsen Iran’s economic crises, including rising inflation and currency devaluation, negatively impacting citizens and increasing social, economic, political, and security pressures. A failed agreement would also limit foreign investment and reduce economic cooperation opportunities with countries like China.

Iran’s nuclear progress may push other regional nations to develop their own nuclear programs, increasing the risk of a regional nuclear arms race and undermining the objectives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This could trigger strong international reactions, akin to North Korea’s case. Iran’s lack of commitment could also derail current Oman-mediated negotiations in Muscat and Rome, where Iran demands guarantees against future US withdrawal, while the US insists on strict compliance measures.

Termed sanctions offer a practical approach to addressing Iran’s nuclear advancements without resorting to military intervention. They provide clear expectations, accountability, and consequence-driven diplomacy, ensuring Iran engages in negotiations transparently. As US President Donald Trump emphasized, reactive measures have failed—Democrats previously advocated them, yet they yielded little results. Enforceable sanctions tied to deadlines are crucial for global security and stability.

Iran’s noncompliance may result in harsher sanctions, potential military escalation, and diplomatic isolation, with domestic economic repercussions and regional nuclear proliferation risks. The situation is complicated by mutual distrust between Iran, its neighbors, and the West, making diplomatic solutions difficult and elusive. Termed sanctions are not merely a pressure tool but also a reassurance to global markets that Iran cannot cross red lines without immediate economic and military consequences. Iran has previously bypassed restrictions due to the absence of strict responses, but clear deadlines will prevent it from exploiting negotiations.