Tension between Iran, US represents significant juncture
(MENAFN) The ongoing tension between Iran and the United States represents a significant juncture, where the return of a more moderate faction in Iran coincides with Donald Trump's leadership in the US, marking a shift within the Republican Party. The nuclear issue, which was once considered a resolved point of disagreement, has resurfaced as the central challenge after Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). While this has been a consistent source of friction, it is not an inherently alarming issue given its long history and is now at the heart of the tension between the two nations.
To understand the dynamics of Iran-US relations, it is essential to examine the positions of the key stakeholders. The Arab nations of the region have notably softened their approach toward Iran. Relations between Iran and countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain, which were previously strained for reasons that were not always clear, have shifted towards cautious cooperation. Given their proximity to Iran and deep ties with global powers like the US, Europe, China, and Russia, this shift has the potential to influence major countries’ approaches to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Israel, on the other hand, has consistently opposed any thaw in Iran’s relations with the West, especially with the US. Throughout the JCPOA negotiations and Trump’s first term, Israel actively worked to thwart any potential resolution between Iran and the West, as it perceives such improvements in relations as a strategic threat. Israel’s primary goal has been to keep Iran isolated and pressured, regardless of the substance of the nuclear issue.
The European Union, while comprising over 20 member states, largely follows the lead of France, Germany, and the UK in foreign policy. While these countries formally support diplomatic solutions, their position toward Iran has hardened since the 2013-2018 period. The EU’s control over the “snapback” mechanism in the JCPOA, combined with transatlantic disagreements, has injected a sense of identity-driven influence into the issue. Consequently, while Western Europe is unlikely to take bold diplomatic action, it retains the ability to hinder progress, particularly through the snapback mechanism, driven by deeper ideological and political factors.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
