Iran poised to drive a hard bargain before ending the war

Seasoned observers of global affairs recognise a familiar pattern: however complicated events may appear at first, the truth eventually comes to the fore. This was evident during the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, justified on the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The stated aim was to make the world safer. Saddam’s regime collapsed swiftly, yet no such weapons were ever found — a failure that raised serious questions about both the justification for war and the role of much of the Western media, which largely supported the bogus claim. More than two decades later, similar events have unfolded. Last month, talk of military action against Iran gained momentum and, within weeks, war became a reality. Iran was attacked by the United States and Israel, both nuclear-armed states, on the grounds that it posed an “imminent threat”. Although Iran was not accused of possessing WMD, its clerical regime was said to be developing nuclear weapons and unwilling to compromise. This, it was argued, made military action necessary. At first glance, events relating to Iraq (2003) and Iran (2026) appear somewhat similar. Yet there is a crucial difference: while doubts about Iraq’s alleged WMD emerged gradually, evidence of the Iranian establishment’s willingness to abandon any intention of building nuclear weapons has already begun to surface among those closely following developments. Increasingly, it is becoming clear that the ongoing war was utterly avoidable. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had indicated to American negotiators during their last meeting his country’s willingness to make significant concessions on its nuclear programme. On February 28, Al Jazeera reported: “Peace ‘within reach’ as Iran agrees no nuclear material stockpile: Oman FM. ” Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi described the negotiations as a “major breakthrough”, stating that Iran had agreed not to stockpile enriched uranium — a step that would significantly reduce the risk of weaponisation. He expressed confidence that remaining issues could be resolved within months, urging that diplomacy be allowed to proceed and suggesting that negotiators had effectively “cracked” the problem. Yet, on the very same day, reports emerged that the United States and Israel had initiated military operations against Iran. In a video address on Truth Social, President Donald Trump announced “major combat operations” in coordination with Israel, citing the need to neutralise “imminent threats”. Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, similarly described the strikes as “pre-emptive”. Subsequent statements by Araghchi further undermined the US-Israeli justification for war. In an interview on CBS News’ Face the Nation on March 15, he confirmed that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile had been verified by international agencies and was not concealed. Much of it, he added, lay buried under debris from the strikes, with no immediate plans to recover it. More importantly, he revealed that just 48 hours before the attacks, Iran had offered to dilute its 60 per cent enriched uranium — a major concession intended to demonstrate that it neither sought nor intended to develop nuclear weapons. Although talks collapsed once hostilities began, his remarks indicated that diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted before the outbreak of war. Further support came from The Guardian on March 17. Journalists Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger reported that Britain’s National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who attended the final round of talks, believed a deal was within reach. Iran’s proposals were described as “significant” and sufficient to avert war. A follow-up meeting scheduled in Vienna for March 2 never took place; by then, hostilities had already begun. On March 18, Wintour published another report noting that the Omani foreign minister not only informed the international media of the breakthrough but also travelled to the United States to brief members of the Trump administration. He wrote that Oman feared key intermediaries were not conveying the full extent of progress to the president. The frantic diplomatic effort reflected Muscat’s belief that a deal was close — yet it failed to halt the march towards war. This sequence raises an unavoidable question: why was a ferocious war imposed on Iran when its leadership had conveyed a willingness to relinquish its enriched uranium stockpile? Had Trump seized the opportunity and clinched a deal, his administration would have been praised widely for resolving a difficult crisis through diplomacy. What, then, of Benjamin Netanyahu’s role? The Israeli prime minister appears to have been instrumental in persuading Washington to act militarily. That, too, warrants scrutiny. Equally important is the question of Iran’s likely response if the United States were now to offer an end to hostilities in exchange for the surrender of its uranium stockpile. Would Tehran even consider such a proposal? It is highly unlikely. However pressing the need to end the war, Iran would almost certainly reject such terms — even if accompanied by sanctions relief. Several factors explain this. First, Iran is nursing deep wounds. Within weeks, it has lost several senior leaders, including its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and prominent official Ali Larijani, along with widespread civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Rebuilding will take years. Second, there is a growing perception within Tehran that the war may be turning, slowly but steadily, in its favour. Through strategic manoeuvres — including its calculated moves in and around the Strait of Hormuz — Iran appears to be exerting pressure on its adversaries. Under such circumstances, settling for a ceasefire may seem inadequate. Tehran may instead seek stronger guarantees, including assurances against future attacks and possibly reparations. There is, however, a caveat. Iran’s position will remain viable only so long as the conflict stays within the bounds of conventional warfare. Should either the United States or Israel resort to nuclear weapons, the equation would change dramatically, with unpredictable and catastrophic consequences. In essence, Iran’s leadership appears to have responded with strategic clarity to the attacks it faced at the end of last month. Despite early setbacks it has managed to stabilise its position. The challenge now lies not only in sustaining that response but also in recognising the appropriate moment to de-escalate. Ultimately, wars are not judged solely by battlefield outcomes but by the wisdom shown in ending them. Iran’s leaders may have demonstrated resilience and resolve; they must now demonstrate judgement. Knowing when to silence one’s guns can be as important as knowing when to fight — especially when global peace is at stake. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder