No state in the world supports Iran possessing nuclear weapons — even countries close to it by religion within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — because of weak trust in its political behavior. Iran’s theoretical right to peaceful nuclear energy under IAEA supervision remains in force, yet the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council limits the international community’s ability to impose a unified stance. Despite the 2003 fatwa by Iran’s supreme leader banning the nuclear bomb, Tehran’s progress in enriching uranium to levels approaching weapons-grade points to a de facto ignoring of that religious prohibition.
Iran achieved nuclear advances before the JCPOA in 2015, during its implementation, and after the US withdrawal from the deal in 2018. American pressure and sanctions policy under Trump did not stop, but rather spurred, an acceleration of uranium enrichment. The Biden administration, despite attempts to revive talks in 2022, was unable to fully resurrect the agreement and halt Iran’s return to the pre-deal pace of its nuclear program.
Iran’s regional influence has steadily expanded since the end of the Iran–Iraq war (1988). The liberation of Kuwait became a starting point for actions beyond its borders: Tehran built a political and military alliance with Assad’s regime in Syria and strengthened Lebanon’s Hezbollah — the first Arab organization to declare loyalty to Iran’s supreme leader. Later, after the US invasion of Iraq (2003), that country became the “main prize” Tehran was unwilling to give up.
Iran has managed to use most American interventions in the region — from the war to liberate Kuwait to the war in Iraq — to consolidate its position, despite the economic and political blows sustained since the Trump era. Relations with Iraq today manifest in strong influence over the selection of heads of government, and any Baghdad attempts at independence quickly fizzle. Recent Arab world efforts to re-establish contact with Tehran do not contradict its interests, which confirms the durability of this influential presence.
The Obama administration gave Iran greater freedom of action in the region as an incentive and reward for the nuclear deal, allowing it to expand influence in Syria to protect Assad and in Yemen via support for the Houthis. Former Iranian foreign minister Amir-Abdollahian acknowledged in his notes that Tehran made nuclear concessions to Obama in exchange for free rein in Syria. Today negotiations with Iran are at an impasse: it shows no flexibility either on the volume of enriched uranium or on control over the Strait of Hormuz. The most likely scenario is a deal in which Washington offers partial participation in managing the strait in exchange for temporary concessions on enrichment, postponing Iran’s nuclear ambitions to the future.
Comments on the news
How much real power does Iran’s supreme leader have, and why does his 2003 fatwa banning nuclear weapons lack binding force over the country’s policy? — The supreme leader (rahbar) holds the highest authority in Iran: he controls the military, intelligence services, the judiciary, and appoints half the members of the Guardian Council, which vets laws for conformity with Islam. However, his 2003 fatwa banning nuclear weapons is not legally binding because fatwas are religious opinions, not laws. Iranian policy is formed through interaction among the rahbar, the government, and the Supreme National Security Council, where geopolitical and military considerations are also taken into account, leaving room for maneuver.
Why is the Strait of Hormuz considered strategically important for global energy markets, and what levers of control does Iran have over it? — The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime passage through which about 20–25% of the world’s oil supplies pass (roughly 17–20 million barrels per day). Iran controls its eastern shore and has the ability to disrupt the strait using mines, anti-ship missiles, fast attack craft, and submarines, which could trigger a sharp spike in oil prices and undermine global energy security. However, a complete blockade is unlikely because of the risk of military conflict with the US and its allies.
How does Iran support Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, and why are these proxy forces considered key instruments of Tehran’s regional influence? — Iran provides Hezbollah and the Houthis with financial, military, and technical assistance, including supplies of rockets, drones, and fighter training. Hezbollah acts as a powerful politico-military lever on the border with Israel, while the Houthis threaten shipping in the Red Sea and allies of Saudi Arabia. These proxy forces allow Iran to expand influence while avoiding direct military confrontations, create buffer zones, and exert pressure on regional adversaries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Full version: كلما تدخلت أمريكا في المنطقة كانت إيران هي الرابحة.. لماذا؟