The international community’s aggressive policy towards Iran is short-term with no substantial results on the ground.
Iran has recently announced it would start enriching uranium above a concentration of 3.67 per cent. This happened a few hours after Iran had given a 60-day deadline to the remaining parties to the deal–China, France, Germany, Russia and the UK–to protect it from the US sanctions.

These five countries and the US had signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as Iran Nuclear Deal, with Iran in 2015 to curb its nuclear programme. Consequently, Iran had agreed to let in international inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for an end to tight economic sanctions. The deal that took 12 years to construct was considered a triumph of international diplomacy and a major victory for regional and global security. Iran had stopped a bomb and war in the Middle East. The P5+1 and Iran had a compromise, which was the whole point of it. The deal was considered, by far, the strongest nonproliferation agreement. According to the IAEA, Iran had remained in full compliance with the deal. Iran had already shown its intention to reduce its nuclear commitments to the deal by increasing the enrichment of uranium.

Iran claimed the US had directly while the EU had indirectly violated the nuclear deal. Subsequently, the rising tensions between Iran and the US have sparked fears over an imminent war between the two nations. Following Iran’s decision to enrich Uranium beyond the terms agreed in the nuclear deal, the US President Donald Trump said that Iran was “playing with fire.” Likewise, the US National Security Strategy (NSS) had also listed Iran as one of the four top threats.

After years of having politically charged anti-Iran sentiments, the US administration has already been working to lay the groundwork for military strikes to bring Iran on its knees.
To be fair, since the revolution, it is not the first time that Iran has found itself at a critical fork. Iran’s survival in the post-revolution testing times could be seen 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 and the decade-long standoff with the international community over its nuclear program between 2003 and 2015. It was able to overcome nearly all kinds of challenges. The international community, however, fails to understand Iran in terms of its nuances, cleavages, opportunities and its changes. The international community’s aggressive policy towards Iran is short-term with no substantial results on the ground. Due to limited-to-no political ties with Iran, the international community has failed to nurture or nudge Iran towards much-needed popularly supported change. Furthermore, the US foreign policy has also become a victim of continuous anti-Iran sentiments. Similarly, Iran is holding fast to its anti-American ideology.
Unfortunately, both sides are now bound together by the conflict that has resulted in the continued stagnation in their relationship.

Though the war hawks may not understand or desire peace. Yet, after the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, we know what war takes.
The hawks believe the military action against Iran may store deterrence. However, there are little choices for P5+1 and Iran. It would affect everyone. The need of the hour is to save the deal, and the pragmatic approach is to revive it in its true letter and spirit. The ongoing struggle to defend the nuclear agreement is not enough; the deal has been working already, and the promise of a ‘better deal is a delusion. Looking for excuses to start a war is insane. Winning without war must be a priority and the purpose of every effort must be to stop Iran to build a nuclear bomb. There would be no end to this crisis if it does not happen. To build confidence among policymakers and stakeholders returning to the deal is a prerequisite. Whatever it may be, the door of diplomacy should remain open. According to the revered French Statesman, Napoleon Bonaparte, “If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon shots.”