The Trump administration’s high-stakes gambit to dismantle the Iran nuclear deal has backfired, leaving the United Kingdom to reaffirm its commitment to multilateral diplomacy. As the United States reimposed sanctions on Iran, the UK, alongside France and Germany, has stood firm, preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite its unilateral abandonment by Washington.
The JCPOA, signed in 2015, was a cornerstone of non-proliferation efforts. It limited Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. For years, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) certified Iranian compliance. Yet the Trump administration argued the deal was flawed, citing insufficient restrictions on ballistic missiles and regional influence. In May 2018, the US withdrew, triggering a cascade of sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy.
But the gambit assumed that maximum pressure would force Iran back to the negotiating table for a better deal. Instead, Iran has gradually breached enrichment limits, now exceeding the 3.67% purity cap and stockpiling low-enriched uranium beyond permitted levels. The IAEA reported in November 2023 that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is 22 times the JCPOA limit. This is a direct consequence of the US withdrawal.
The UK and European partners have responded with a diplomatic countermeasure: the INSTEX mechanism, a barter system designed to circumvent US sanctions. Though limited in scope, it signals European resolve. Meanwhile, the UK’s Foreign Office has repeatedly stressed that the JCPOA remains the best framework for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. This stance has proven prescient.
Why has the US gamble failed? First, it misjudged Iranian resilience. The regime has weathered sanctions for decades. Second, it alienated key allies. The UK, France, and Germany have deep trade ties with Iran and view the deal as security asset. Third, the gambit assumed that new negotiations would be swift. They have not materialised. Iran’s leadership, now more hardline, demands sanctions relief as precondition for talks.
From a scientific perspective, the nuclear clock is ticking. Enrichment of uranium beyond 90% purity yields weapons-grade material. Iran has not crossed that threshold, but its technical capability grows. The IAEA estimates Iran could produce enough fissile material for a bomb within weeks if it chose to. This is brinkmanship driven by desperation born of economic pressure.
The UK’s position is not just diplomatic; it is rationale. The cost of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is unthinkable. Already, Saudi Arabia has hinted at pursuing nuclear weapons if Iran does. Non-proliferation regimes like the NPT rely on trust. The US erosion of that trust damages global security.
The energy transition angle here is subtle but real. Iran sits atop huge gas reserves. Investment in its energy sector could have aided global energy diversity. Sanctions have instead pushed Iran toward self-reliance and isolation. Meanwhile, the UK continues to back renewable energy transitions as part of its decarbonisation strategy. A stable Iran could help stabilise oil markets and reduce supply shocks.
In summary, the Trump administration’s gamble failed because it ignored physics: you cannot negotiate enrichment limits from a position of economic warfare. The UK, by sticking with allies and the deal, has chosen a path of calm urgency. The biosphere of diplomacy requires constant tending. The UK is watering the seeds of the JCPOA while others burn the field.
