The writer is an economist, anchor, geopolitical analyst, and
the President of All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
US President Donald Trump said he had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing nuclear talks, adding that “there are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded that he would not negotiate with the US while being “threatened”, and Iran would not bow to US “orders” to talk. The Trump administration imposed a “maximum pressure” policy on Iran in February that includes efforts to drive its oil exports to zero in order to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and funding militant groups. The latest China-Russia-Iran dialogue is currently just the beginning, noting that the meeting could be seen as part of damage-control measures, aimed at preventing the Iranian nuclear issue from escalating further. The Iran nuclear deal was signed ten years ago, and the issue has once again reached a critical crossroads. There are essentially two approaches to resolving it. One approach is the US strategy, which relies on extreme pressure, as seen during the Trump administration following the US withdrawal from the agreement. This led Iran to accelerate its uranium enrichment process, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation. However, another approach is the multilateral diplomatic resolution, which proved effective in the original Iran nuclear agreement a decade ago. Noting that China played a key role in that process, where all parties engaged in dialogue, sought common ground while setting aside differences, and ultimately reached a consensus on the nuclear deal. In response to a question on the impact of the meeting on the resumption of dialogue and negotiation and the prospect of a political and diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on Friday that The Iranian nuclear issue is facing a serious situation and once again at a crossroads. The Beijing meeting is a useful effort by China, Russia and Iran in seeking to advance the settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue. In the joint statement issued after the China-Russia-Iran meeting, the three countries agreed to continue their close consultation and cooperation in the future. To understand the current crossroads, we must first revisit the JCPOA’s origins and demise. Signed in 2015 after years of painstaking negotiations, the deal was a compromise between Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology and the international community’s fear of proliferation. Iran agreed to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, and dismantle two-thirds of its centrifuges, all under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, the P5+1 and the European Union pledged to lift nuclear-related sanctions, unlocking billions in frozen assets and reviving Iran’s oil exports. Endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the JCPOA was a rare triumph of collective diplomacy, balancing the interests of rivals like the U.S., Russia, and China while addressing Iran’s legitimate energy needs. For a time, it worked. IAEA reports from 2016 to 2018 consistently verified Iran’s compliance, and global trade began to flow back into Tehran. Yet, the deal’s fragility was exposed by domestic politics in the United States. Trump’s 2018 withdrawal—driven by a campaign promise to undo Obama-era achievements and a belief that the JCPOA failed to address Iran’s ballistic missiles or regional influence—reimposed sanctions with extraterritorial reach, targeting not just Iran but any entity doing business with it. The “maximum pressure” policy aimed to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero, a move Trump framed as necessary to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and funding its allies groups like Hezbollah. The fallout was swift and severe. Iran, initially restrained under President Hassan Rouhani, began breaching JCPOA limits in 2019, enriching uranium to 20% and later 60%—levels perilously close to weapons-grade. By 2021, the deal was a hollow shell, with European signatories (the E3—France, Germany, and the UK) unable to salvage it through mechanisms like INSTEX, a barter system designed to bypass U.S. sanctions. The Biden administration, despite campaign promises to rejoin, has struggled to revive the agreement amid mutual distrust and Iran’s accelerated nuclear progress. As of March 2025, the JCPOA’s sunset clauses loom—key provisions expire in October—leaving the international community with a narrowing window to act. This history frames the Iranian nuclear issue as a tale of two approaches: the multilateral diplomacy that birthed the JCPOA versus the unilateral coercion that has dominated since 2018. The former reduced proliferation risks; the latter has exacerbated them. It is against this backdrop that China, Russia, and Iran are now seeking a new way forward.
With Tehran’s nuclear ambitions hanging in the balance, the specter of a U.S. attack looms large, raising the stakes to a fever pitch. What unfolds at this crossroads could either reshape the Middle East or plunge it into unprecedented turmoil.
The Beijing meeting of deputy foreign ministers from China, Russia, and Iran, held in early March 2025, marks the beginning of a concerted trilateral effort to address the nuclear crisis. Punctuated by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s five-point proposal, the dialogue reflects a convergence of interests among three powers increasingly at odds with the U.S.-led order. Their joint statement condemned “illegal unilateral sanctions,” reaffirmed diplomacy as the only viable path, and called for adherence to Resolution 2231—a pointed rebuke of Washington’s approach. But what drives this alignment, and what does it reveal about the shifting geopolitical landscape? For China, the Iranian nuclear issue is both a strategic opportunity and a test of its global ambitions. Beijing played a pivotal role in the JCPOA’s negotiation, leveraging its economic ties with Iran—particularly in oil imports—and its diplomatic clout as a UNSC permanent member. The deal’s collapse has disrupted those ties, with U.S. secondary sanctions deterring Chinese firms from engaging fully with Tehran. The trilateral dialogue offers China a chance to reassert its influence, counter U.S. hegemony, and promote a multipolar order aligned with its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Wang’s proposal—emphasizing peaceful settlement, mutual respect, and opposition to force—mirrors Beijing’s broader foreign policy of non-intervention and economic partnership, positioning China as a mediator in a crisis the West has failed to resolve. Russia, meanwhile, sees the nuclear issue as a front in its broader confrontation with the United States. Since 2014, when Western sanctions over Ukraine pushed Moscow closer to Tehran, Russia has deepened its military and economic ties with Iran, notably through arms sales and cooperation in Syria. The JCPOA’s unraveling has allowed Russia to portray the U.S. as an unreliable partner, bolstering its case for alternative security architectures like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). By aligning with China and Iran, Moscow can challenge Western dominance in the Middle East, secure its southern flank, and undermine U.S. sanctions regimes that threaten its own economy. Iran’s motivations are more immediate but no less strategic. Facing economic collapse under “maximum pressure”—with inflation soaring and oil exports plummeting—Tehran has turned to China and Russia as lifelines. The 25-year cooperation agreement with China, signed in 2021, promises $400 billion in investments, while Russia’s support has bolstered Iran’s regional clout. President Masoud Pezeshkian’s refusal to negotiate under threat, as expressed in response to Trump’s recent letter, underscores Iran’s defiance but also its desperation for allies. The trilateral dialogue offers a platform to resist U.S. pressure, legitimize its nuclear program as a sovereign right, and secure diplomatic cover against potential military escalation. Together, this trio forms a pragmatic alliance, united not by ideology but by a shared resentment of U.S. unilateralism and a desire to reshape the international order. Their coordination in forums like BRICS and the SCO suggests a long-term strategy to institutionalize this bloc, with the nuclear issue as a proving ground. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and its “maximum pressure” policy have reshaped the Iranian nuclear crisis, with profound implications for global security and diplomacy. This approach has been a strategic miscalculation, driving Iran closer to a nuclear threshold while alienating allies and empowering rivals. A critical examination reveals three key consequences. First, it has accelerated Iran’s nuclear program. Pre-2018, Iran adhered to JCPOA limits, with a breakout time—the period needed to produce enough fissile material for a bomb—estimated at one year. Today, timeline could be at weeks, if not days, given Iran’s stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges. Far from curbing proliferation, U.S. policy has heightened the risk, pushing Iran to hedge against existential threats. Second, it has fractured the transatlantic alliance. The E3, while critical of Iran’s breaches, have consistently opposed U.S. unilateralism, viewing it as a betrayal of their diplomatic investment in the JCPOA. Efforts to circumvent sanctions via INSTEX failed not for lack of will but because U.S. financial dominance—via the dollar and SWIFT—rendered them impotent. This divergence has weakened Western cohesion, leaving Europe sidelined as China and Russia fill the void. Third, it has catalyzed the trilateral bloc. The Beijing meeting is a direct response to U.S. actions, reflecting a broader trend of “de-Westernization” in global affairs. As the U.S. penchant for sanctions has accelerated the shift to a multipolar world, where powers like China and Russia offer alternatives to American hegemony. The joint statement’s call to “terminate all illegal unilateral sanctions” is both a critique of U.S. policy and a rallying cry for a new order—one less beholden to Washington’s dictates. Yet, the U.S. approach is not without its defenders. Although, Trump’s letter to Ayatollah Khamenei, proposing talks for a “better deal,” reflects this view: that only overwhelming pressure can force Iran to concede on missiles, proxies, and a permanent nuclear cap, but indeed it’s misperception and miscalculation. However, this logic falters against reality. Iran has not buckled; it has doubled down, exposing the limits of coercion absent a credible diplomatic offramp.
Can the trilateral dialogue succeed where the JCPOA faltered? The Beijing meeting offers a glimmer of hope, but its path is fraught with obstacles. Wang’s five-point proposal—committing to peaceful settlement, opposing force and sanctions, upholding Resolution 2231, eliminating root causes, and fostering a favorable atmosphere—echoes the principles that underpinned the 2015 deal. Yet, translating rhetoric into action requires overcoming three challenges: internal cohesion, Western buy-in, and Iran’s nuclear posture. First, the trilateral bloc must align its diverse interests. China seeks stability for economic gain, Russia prioritizes geopolitical leverage, and Iran demands sanctions relief and security guarantees. These goals overlap but can diverge—Beijing’s caution about escalation clashes with Tehran’s brinkmanship, while Moscow’s arms sales to Iran may unsettle China’s regional partners like Saudi Arabia. The vagueness on next steps suggests a coalition still finding its footing. Second, any resolution must involve the West, particularly the U.S. The JCPOA’s success hinged on P5+1 unity; its failure stemmed from disunity. China’s call for the U.S. to “demonstrate political sincerity” and return to talks is pragmatic—sanctions relief, Iran’s core demand, lies in Washington’s hands. Yet, U.S. domestic politics remain a wildcard. With Trump’s influence enduring and midterm elections looming in 2026, a return to the JCPOA or a new deal faces stiff resistance from hawks who view Iran as an irredeemable foe. Europe, meanwhile, could bridge this gap, but its leverage is diminished without American support. Third, Iran’s nuclear advances complicate diplomacy. Tehran’s 60% enrichment and restricted IAEA access signal a shift from compliance to defiance, a bargaining chip to extract concessions. Iranian President Pezeshkian’s stance—no talks under threat—reflects a hardline domestic consensus, reinforced by the Revolutionary Guard’s growing clout. Any deal must balance Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with verifiable non-proliferation safeguards, a tightrope the JCPOA walked but which now seems narrower. Despite these hurdles, the trilateral initiative has potential. It could evolve into a broader framework, perhaps under UN auspices, that incorporates the E3 and other stakeholders like Pakistan, India or Turkey. China’s mediation skills—honed in the JCPOA and recent Saudi-Iran détente—lend credibility, while Russia’s security ties with Iran provide leverage. The key lies in crafting a phased approach: Iran freezes enrichment in exchange for limited sanctions relief, building trust for wider talks. Such a process would test the trilateral bloc’s unity and the West’s willingness to pivot from confrontation to cooperation. The Iranian nuclear crisis is a microcosm of a world in transition. U.S. unilateralism has eroded the post-1945 order, where multilateral institutions like the UNSC once held sway. The trilateral dialogue, alongside forums like BRICS and the SCO, signals a countertrend: a multipolar system where non-Western powers assert agency. This shift carries risks—fragmentation, competing blocs, a weakened non-proliferation regime—but also opportunities for innovation. If China, Russia, and Iran can forge a viable alternative to the JCPOA, it could redefine how global crises are managed, prioritizing dialogue over dominance. As the Iranian nuclear issue stands at a crossroads, much as it did a decade ago. The U.S. strategy of “extreme pressure” has failed to halt Iran’s nuclear march, instead birthing a trilateral counterforce in China, Russia, and Iran. Their dialogue in Beijing is a bold gambit—an attempt to reclaim agency amid U.S. unilateralism and revive the spirit of multilateralism that once prevailed. Whether it succeeds depends on their cohesion, the West’s response, and Iran’s willingness to compromise. The three sides emphasized the necessity of terminating all illegal unilateral sanctions. Reaffirming the political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue remains the only viable and practical option for the Iranian nuclear issue, which put forward China’s five-point proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue, including staying committed to peaceful settlement of disputes through political and diplomatic means, and opposing the use of force and illegal sanctions. Relevant parties should work to eliminate the root causes of the current situation and abandon sanctions, pressure, and threats of the use of force. The importance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 must be stressed and its timeline, urging all relevant parties to refrain from actions that could escalate tensions and to jointly create a favorable atmosphere and conditions for diplomatic efforts. The trilateral meeting was held against the backdrop of the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and the continued maximum pressure on Iran by the Trump administration. Amid the US’ unilateral actions and extreme pressure, the original framework under the UN reached between Iran and other permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) plus Germany has been unable to function effectively. Therefore, China, Russia, and Iran are exploring new mechanisms to prevent further deterioration of the Iranian nuclear issue and to seek a diplomatic resolution. Among the five-point proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue proposed by Wang, China stays committed to balancing rights and responsibilities, and takes a holistic approach to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The US should demonstrate political sincerity and return to talks at an early date. History has proven that acting from a position of strength would not lead to the key to resolving difficult issues. Upholding the principle of mutual respect is the only viable path to finding the greatest common ground that accommodates the legitimate concerns of all parties and reaching a solution that meets the expectation of the international community. Under the current situation, hasty intervention by the UNSC will not help build confidence or bridge differences among the relevant parties. Initiating the snapback mechanism would undo years of diplomatic efforts, and must be handled with caution. Putting maximum pressure on a certain country is not going to achieve the goal. In this context, the international community faces the challenge of seeking new solutions and approaches, and must not allow the US’ unilateral actions to undermine all the consensus and mechanisms regarding international hotspot issues. If the other parties, aside from the US, can maintain consensus, this will, in turn. The JCPOA’s lesson is very clear: diplomacy, however imperfect, outperforms coercion in managing complex threats. The trilateral bloc must heed this, as failure risks not just a nuclear Iran but a broader unraveling of global order. In a world teetering on the brink of chaos, the Iranian nuclear saga has reached a critical juncture, threatening to ignite a geopolitical firestorm. As the United States flexes its unilateral muscle, imposing relentless sanctions and rattling sabers with whispers of preemptive strikes, an emboldened axis of China, Russia, and Iran emerges from the shadows. This trio, bound by mutual defiance and strategic necessity, is charting a bold new course—rewriting the rules of global power amid escalating tensions. With Tehran’s nuclear ambitions hanging in the balance, the specter of a U.S. attack looms large, raising the stakes to a fever pitch. What unfolds at this crossroads could either reshape the Middle East or plunge it into unprecedented turmoil. At this critical juncture, the world watches—and waits—for a path forward.