A new deal in the shadow of blast & fire!

Raju Korti
As I watched the plumes of smoke rise from Shahid Rajaee port near Bandar Abbas, the gravity of the moment settled heavily. Just as US-Iran nuclear talks resumed after years of distrust and dangerous brinkmanship, the blast is a stark reminder of how fragile diplomacy can be in the Middle East. It is against this turbulent backdrop that Iran and the United States are attempting to stitch together a new understanding on one of the most contentious issues of our time: Iran’s nuclear programme.

At its core, the US-Iran nuclear deal seeks to strike a simple, yet profoundly delicate, balance: Iran curbs its nuclear ambitions in return for relief from crippling economic sanctions. The goal is to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon while allowing it to pursue peaceful nuclear energy under strict international monitoring.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) initially achieved this to some extent. Iran agreed to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67%, dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure, and submit to rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, it gained access to global markets and billions in frozen assets.

However, the benefits of the deal, as also its flaws. became evident over time. For the United States and its allies, the JCPOA delayed Iran’s "breakout time" to a bomb but did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear knowledge or its regional ambitions. Critics, including then-candidate Donald Trump, argued that the deal sunset clauses would allow Iran to resume enrichment activities within a decade, and that it failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional interventions through proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis.

From Iran’s perspective, the deal was supposed to bring economic revival. But with Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 and the reimposition of "maximum pressure" sanctions, Iran’s economy was again strangled, leading to rising domestic discontent and a return to higher levels of uranium enrichment — reportedly close to weapons-grade today.

My gut feeling is the current negotiations, mediated cautiously by Oman and staged in Rome and Muscat, are a fragile attempt to rebuild what was lost. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi’s caution is understandable. Trust, once shattered, is not easily restored. And Trump, in typical form, remains bullish -- voicing optimism in the talks while simultaneously warning that "military options are on the table.

The stakes are monumental. A successful deal could bring much-needed stability to a region perpetually on the brink of conflict. It could ease global oil prices, restore Iran’s access to international markets, and -- perhaps most critically -- avert the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Iran. Conversely, failure could trigger a new arms race in the Middle East, embolden hardliners on all sides, and push the US and Iran closer to open confrontation.

Internationally, a renewed deal would signal a shift back to diplomacy over coercion, reviving multilateralism that took a backseat during the "America First" years. It could also reshape alliances: European powers, weary of the US’s erratic policy swings, are closely watching. Russia and China, already cozying up to Iran through trade and military agreements, could exploit any gaps if negotiations falter.

Now where does India figure in this? New Delhi, which maintains historic ties with Tehran while valuing its strategic partnership with Washington, has a delicate balance to maintain. A successful deal would allow India to resume vital oil imports from Iran, which had been slashed under US sanctions, thereby diversifying its energy sources at a time when the global oil market is turbulent. It would also rejuvenate stalled infrastructure projects like the Chabahar Port, which is critical for India’s connectivity to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. Moreover, a stable Iran could contribute to regional security in the Gulf -- home to millions of Indian expatriates and a major source of remittances.

However, if talks collapse, India could find itself navigating an even tighter geopolitical squeeze -- forced to choose between US strategic interests and its own economic and regional imperatives.

The explosion at Shahid Rajaee port is a grim reminder that diplomacy does not happen in a vacuum. As Iran and the US prepare for another round of talks next week, the world watches with bated breath. There is an urgency now that wasn't as palpable before: the urgency of preventing a new war, of avoiding another nuclear-armed flashpoint.

In moments like these, history hinges on patience, persistence, and an extraordinary amount of good faith -- all of which I feel are in perilously short supply today.