Authors: Murad Ali and Dr Rahat Iqbal*
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls on President Donald Trump to launch military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, to further Washington’s early maximalist demands on Tehran’s nuclear program. If discussions fail, President Trump has threatened to use force against Iran. He warned Iran to give up its entire nuclear program as a condition of the negotiations. “The new administration will only talk to Iran if they want to give up their entire program and not play games as we’ve seen Iran do in prior negotiations”, US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz told Fox News on February 16, 2025.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei while speaking at a conference earlier this week stated that “When it comes to a country like Iran, they cannot do a damn thing.” Further he maintained, “you cannot threaten Iran on one hand and claim to support dialogue on the other hand,” The response came after the meeting of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with State Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State in Jerusalem previous week. Both the officials were of the view that “their countries were determined to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its influence in the Middle East”. Benjamin Netanyahu also stated that Israel had delivered a “mighty blow” to Iran since the onset of the Gaza conflict. He expressed that with the support of President Donald Trump “I have no doubt we can and will finish the job”.
Even under the first administration of President Trump, Israel was unable to convince the US government to launch a military campaign against Iran. However, in 2018, President Trump conceded to Benjamin Netanyahu request by withdrawing from the three-year-old Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOPA). Since then, Iran has advanced its nuclear program, bringing it one step closer to producing weapons-grade fissile material. Up to 60% of enriched uranium has been generated thus far.
Contrarily, the IAEA Board of Governors censured Iran for not complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its commitments under the JCPOA, prompting Iran to threaten withdrawal from the treaty and escalate its uranium enrichment activities. Iran now faces three potential scenarios: 1) pursuing latent nuclear deterrence by preparing to quickly build a nuclear bomb without officially blocking IAEA access; 2) moving toward rapid nuclear weapons development due to the perceived risk of an imminent Israeli or US attack; or 3) seeking diplomatic negotiations to address nuclear and broader security concerns. Regardless of the chosen path, each scenario carries significant risks, including the potential for conflict, which could destabilize Iran’s regime and security strategy.
The war in Gaza in 2023 has fundamentally altered Iran’s strategy. Tehran’s strategic thinking was first centered on two main objectives. First, to prevent an attack by an enemy, primarily the US and Israel. Second, to keep its military self-sufficient so that it is essentially defensive. Iran’s security threats from Israel have intensified due to recent challenges faced by its proxies in the Middle East. The loss of Syria to anti-Iranian insurgent forces, the decline of Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah’s weakened position, indicate a significant reduction in Iran’s axis of resistance in the region. Consequently, Iran’s reliance on its nuclear program remains as the only way to deter US and Israeli aggression. Given these conditions, Iran is unlikely to yield on to the US maximalist demands, effectively terminating any potential for negotiations with the US.
According to the US, Washington would prefer to negotiate with Iran, but only if Iran commits to dismantling its entire nuclear program. The US has threatened to use force if Iran does not comply with this maximalist demand. But Iran is not likely to give in to these pressures. One must raise a question. Will the United States use force against Iran, or will diplomatic attempts persist in some capacity despite the tension?
A military strike is unlikely in the future due to several considerations. One of the main concerns is the possibility of destabilizing the entire Middle East, which might draw allies and intensify into a broader conflict. Furthermore, military action is politically and strategically difficult due to domestic resistance following the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as international opposition, particularly from Europe. Tehran’s reliance on its nuclear program as a deterrent with regard to its diminished regional clout makes compromise difficult, notwithstanding the US maximalist demand. Since direct military intervention would be expensive, unpredictable in its conclusion, and likely to develop into a larger conflict, the US is more likely to continue using diplomatic and economic pressure, using sanctions and discussions, even though military action is still a possibility.
*Dr Rahat Iqbal is an Associate Director Research at Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS), Islamabad.