End of Appeasement Doctrine and Islamic Republic

For nearly two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged in a complex and often futile diplomatic dance with global powers, particularly the United States and European nations, centred around its nuclear program. From the early negotiations in the 2000s to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, this diplomatic journey has been marked by persistent challenges. However, the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, followed by the activation of the “snapback” mechanism this September, was not merely a transient geopolitical event but a definitive signal of the end of a long-standing policy of appeasement towards the regime. This seismic shift has placed the Islamic Republic on a trajectory reminiscent of the catastrophic collapse of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, pushing Islamic Republic toward a precarious fall.

The Evolution of Appeasement Diplomacy

The international community’s concerns over Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions emerged prominently in the early 2000s, prompting Western powers, led by the United States and the E3 (Britain, France, and Germany), to pursue a diplomatic strategy aimed at preventing the regime from obtaining nuclear weapons. Initial negotiations in 2003, fraught with mistrust and setbacks, laid the groundwork for a series of talks that culminated in the JCPOA in 2015. This agreement was celebrated as a diplomatic milestone, designed to curb Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief, with the broader aim of normalising relations with Tehran and integrating it into the global community.

Yet, the JCPOA and the broader diplomatic framework were plagued by inherent weaknesses. The Islamic Republic’s ideological rigidity and aggressive regional policies—supporting proxy groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria—undermined its credibility as a reliable partner. Western powers, meanwhile, adopted a contradictory approach, oscillating between containment and appeasement. By offering economic and political concessions, they allowed Islamic Republic to exploit negotiations to gain breathing room without committing to meaningful behavioural change. The result was an agreement that failed to fully neutralise Islamic regime’s nuclear ambitions while enabling it to expand its regional influence and temporarily shield its economy from the brunt of sanctions.

The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA: A Paradigm Shift

The U.S. decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018 under President Donald Trump marked a pivotal moment in regime’s international relations. Far from being a mere domestic political manoeuvre, as some analysts suggested, the withdrawal, coupled with the implementation of “Maximum Pressure” campaign, represented a deliberate rejection of the appeasement doctrine that had formed Western engagement with the regime for nearly two decades. The subsequent activation of the snapback mechanism, which reinstated UN sanctions, underscored this shift, signalling that the era of diplomatic leniency had come to an end.

This change was not confined to the United States. European nations, initially committed to salvaging the JCPOA without U.S. participation, soon realised the agreement’s limitations in the absence of The US support. By 2025, the activation of the snapback mechanism and the reimposition of international sanctions reflected a broader consensus within the global community: the Islamic Republic could no longer be trusted to adhere to its commitments, and its exploitation of diplomacy to buy time and strengthen its position had eroded patience. This marked a profound shift in the international approach to the regime, driven by the realisation that the regime’s actions—both domestically, regionally and globally especially benign activities in Europe and Israel—posed a persistent threat to global stability.

The Benghazi Scenario, The Regime Under Siege

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has drawn a provocative comparison between the Islamic Republic and Gaddafi’s Libya, arguing that Islamic Republic is on a path toward a similar collapse. While this analogy may seem reductive, it carries significant analytical weight. Like Gaddafi’s regime, which crumbled under the weight of international sanctions, internal repression, and popular uprisings, the Islamic Republic faces a confluence of pressures that threaten its survival.The regime’s economy, heavily reliant on oil revenues, has been devastated by sanctions, mismanagement, and corruption, leading to soaring inflation, widespread unemployment, and a plummeting national currency. These economic woes have fuelled mass protests, notably in 2018 and 2022, which reflect deep-seated public discontent with the regime’s political, economic, and social policies.

Islamic regime’s regional policies have also further exacerbated its vulnerabilities. Its support for proxy groups across the Middle East has drained financial resources and provoked hostility from regional powers and the international community. The regime’s diplomatic isolation is compounded by the limited support it receives from traditional allies like China and Russia, who are constrained by their own strategic priorities. Meanwhile, Israel and several Arab states, united under frameworks like the Abraham Accords, have formed a formidable coalition to counter Islamic Republic’s regional influence. This alignment, combined with the failure of nuclear diplomacy, has left the regime increasingly isolated on the global stage.

The “Benghazi scenario” invoked by Netanyahu encapsulates the potential for a rapid and dramatic collapse driven by internal and external pressures. In Libya, Gaddafi’s regime succumbed to a combination of international intervention and domestic rebellion, with the city of Benghazi symbolising the swift unraveling of an authoritarian state. The regime faces similar fate: economic decline, widespread protests, and diplomatic isolation have eroded the regime’s legitimacy and stability especially post 12 days war in June which significantly reduced missile and nuclear threats on top of internal conflicts amongst the ranks of innermost members of the regime. However, Iran’s complex social, historical, and political fabric—marked by a strong sense of national identity, an educated populace, a vibrant diaspora and a credible alternative The Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi—sets it apart from the bad fate of Libya. These factors suggest that Iran’s post-regime trajectory could differ significantly, potentially avoiding the chaos that engulfed Libya.

Iran’s Unique Path Forward Beyond Propaganda

The Islamic Republic’s propaganda machine has consistently warned that its collapse would plunge Iran into a Libya-like quagmire. However, this narrative overlooks Iran’s distinct advantages. Unlike Libya which is a country of tribes, Iran enjoys a rich civilisation and a statehood for over 2500 years, a highly educated population and a politically engaged society. The presence of a credible patriotic alternative, exemplified by a figure like Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, offers a potential framework for a more stable transition. Iran’s geopolitical significance, coupled with its active civil society and global diaspora, further distinguishes it from Libya’s post-Gaddafi chaos. These factors suggest that, while the regime’s collapse is a plausible scenario, Iran’s future could be shaped by a more structured and resilient path toward renewal.

The Paradigm shift, End of an Era

The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the activation of the snapback mechanism were not isolated diplomatic events but the culmination of a broader rejection of appeasement as a viable strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic and further global crisis. The regime now faces an unprecedented convergence of challenges: crippling economic sanctions, deepening diplomatic isolation, and growing internal dissent. These pressures mirror the conditions that precipitated Gaddafi’s downfall in Libya, raising the spectre of a similar fate for Islamic Republic’s ruling elite.

The Islamic Republic’s collapse is inevitable and the signs of its vulnerability are undeniable. The regime’s ability to navigate these challenges will depend on its capacity to address internal unrest and adapt to an increasingly hostile international environment. Yet, the erosion of its legitimacy, coupled with the exhaustion of diplomatic goodwill, global crisis and regional hostilities suggests that the Islamic Republic is on a precarious trajectory. Unlike Libya, however, Iran’s unique historical and societal strengths offer hope for a different outcome—one that could see the nation emerge from crisis with renewed stability and purpose. As the era of appeasement fades, the Islamic Republic’s survival hangs in the balance, with the spectre of decline looming ever larger.