TEHRAN – The narrative surrounding Iran's nuclear program often leans on alarmist speculation, portraying Tehran as a regional aggressor while sidelining its legitimate security concerns and adherence to international agreements.

These accounts obscure the broader geopolitical inequities that drive Iran's policies, perpetuating myths that derail meaningful dialogue.  

In an article published by Foreign Policy, Sina Azodi explores the complexities of Iran’s nuclear program amid escalating regional tensions. However, the piece inadvertently highlights a recurring theme: the West’s inability—or unwillingness—to uphold agreements, particularly the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  

The JCPOA: a case study in broken promises  

At the heart of Azodi’s analysis is Iran’s growing debate over its nuclear stance. While much attention is given to Iran’s “threshold” nuclear capability, it is essential to place this in the context of the West’s handling of the JCPOA. The agreement, signed in 2015, was a landmark deal in which Iran made substantial concessions, reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium, limiting enrichment activities, and subjecting its facilities to rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  

Despite these commitments, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 under then-President Donald Trump, re-imposing sanctions that had been lifted as part of the agreement. This action, in clear violation of the JCPOA’s terms, shattered the trust painstakingly built through diplomacy and left Iran exposed to heightened security risks.  

Azodi briefly touches on the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal but fails to fully explore its implications. By abandoning the deal, the U.S. not only undermined its own credibility but also removed any incentive for Iran to comply with international norms. Tehran, having upheld its side of the bargain, was effectively punished, while the U.S. and its allies faced no consequences for reneging on their commitments.  

This betrayal explains Iran’s growing skepticism toward future negotiations and its escalating nuclear rhetoric. As Iranian officials, including Kamal Kharazi, have noted, the nation may reconsider its nuclear policy if its survival is threatened—a direct response to the West’s aggressive posturing and broken promises.  

Double standards in non-proliferation

One of the most glaring inconsistencies in the West’s approach to nuclear proliferation lies in its selective scrutiny. While Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has subjected its nuclear program to IAEA inspections, Israel—a regime with an undeclared nuclear arsenal—is exempt from similar oversight.  

Azodi acknowledges that Iran’s nuclear capability remains at a “threshold” status, meaning it has the technical expertise to build a weapon but has not crossed that line. Meanwhile, Israel’s nuclear arsenal, widely acknowledged but officially unconfirmed, exists outside the NPT framework and international regulation.  

This double standard not only undermines the credibility of Western non-proliferation efforts but also fuels resentment in Tehran. Why should Iran, which has adhered to international agreements, face severe sanctions and threats, while Israel operates with impunity? This hypocrisy is at the heart of Iran’s grievances and complicates efforts to reach a lasting resolution.  

A broader failure of diplomacy

The article underscores the role of Iran’s nuclear program in its defense strategy but also inadvertently highlights the broader failure of Western diplomacy. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, combined with Israel’s aggressive posture, has pushed Iran closer to fully realizing its nuclear potential.  

Iran’s nuclear program is not about seeking weapons for aggression but about ensuring national survival in the face of external threats and broken promises. Until the West, particularly the United States, adopts a principled approach—one that respects international agreements and addresses regional security concerns—diplomatic efforts will remain futile.  

The nuclear issue is a symptom of a deeper problem: the West’s unwillingness to engage with Iran on equal terms. If diplomacy is to succeed, it must move beyond myths and double standards, embracing genuine dialogue and mutual respect. Only then can the nuclear issue—and the broader instability it represents—be resolved.