A foreign policy expert has warned of a possible escalation in tensions involving Iran, suggesting that prolonged and inconclusive negotiations with the United States could lead to renewed military action.
Robinder Sachdev said the current situation may be a temporary pause before a larger confrontation, according to ANI.
“If these negotiations continue to stretch out without progress, there is a real possibility of another attack on Iran. As of now, the discussions seem to be going in circles. The United States could grow tired of the delay, and key players like Netanyahu may pressure the Americans to push for an attack to obliterate the regime. Unfortunately, this may simply be the lull before the storm, potentially leading to a massive attack by the United States and Israel in the coming days,” he said, according to ANI.
Iran’s diplomatic outreach raises questions
Sachdev also pointed to recent diplomatic movements by Abbas Araghchi, who has been engaging with multiple countries as part of what he described as “swing diplomacy.”
“Iran is currently engaging in swing diplomacy, reaching out to its allies like Pakistan and Oman. The Iranian Foreign Minister recently visited Pakistan, then Oman, returned to Pakistan, and has now gone to Russia. These visits raise questions about the current geopolitical landscape and the specific role Russia might play in these developments,” he said.
He added that Russia could once again play a strategic role, recalling its involvement during earlier nuclear negotiations.
“The exact role of Russia remains uncertain, but they historically played a significant part in the previous nuclear deal with the West, during which approximately 12.5 tons of Iranian uranium was airlifted to Russia. Beyond this historical linkage, these visits likely aim to fortify Iran’s strategic relations with Russia. Given the threat of an impending war, this support could involve technology, ammunition, or further strategic backing from Russia, in addition to discussions regarding an overall ceasefire,” he said.
Key sticking points: uranium, Strait of Hormuz, missile programme
Sachdev further highlighted that the core issue in ongoing discussions revolves around Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and competing strategic interests.
“The crux of the matter appears to be the “trophy” that Trump wants: the enriched uranium currently held by Iran. He seeks a visible symbol of success, much like his spectacular actions regarding Maduro, so he can clearly claim victory. Iran, however, is adamant about not giving up its uranium. While they relocated uranium during the Obama-era deal pursuant to diplomatic talks, doing so now would be viewed as a surrender in a time of war. Because of this, many of the current discussions seem to be beating around the bush,” he said.
He also noted that Iran has proposed prioritising maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz before engaging in deeper nuclear negotiations.
“Iran has proposed focusing on the opening of the Strait of Hormuz before discussing nuclear weapons. From Iran’s perspective, this is a logical move. They would be willing to open the Strait as long as the United States lifts its blockade, allowing the flow of shipping to resume and the world economy to recover. Under this scenario, a ceasefire would begin, but Iran’s enriched uranium would remain within its borders. This allows supply lines to flow again, but it leaves the United States without the removal of the uranium it seeks,” he said.
Addressing further complexities, he pointed to unresolved issues around Iran’s missile programme and demands for compensation.
“Other significant issues remain, such as Iran’s missile program and their claims for compensation. The extent to which Iran can continue testing and developing long-distance missiles remains a major sticking point. If a compromise is reached only regarding the Strait of Hormuz, Iran would maintain the upper hand in this complex game of chess,” he said.
Meanwhile, recent diplomatic communications by Iran suggest that its negotiating position remains firm, with a clear set of “red lines” conveyed during ongoing engagements with regional and global stakeholders.