The Iranian nuclear crisis has reached a critical point. The JCPOA**,** or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an agreement reached in 2015 to keep Iran’s nuclear program peaceful, will expire in October.

With the United States and Israel threatening military action, and Tehran enriching uranium to 60% — just steps away from weapons grade — the international community faces a stark choice: sleepwalk into conflict or recommit to diplomacy.

The stakes are high. Emergence of a second nuclear-weapons state in the Middle East could unravel global non-proliferation norms, and encourage other countries to pursue hedging strategies. Conversely, unchecked sanctions risk entrenching economic coercion as a tool of statecraft, and upsetting the international order as we know it.

The task of achieving a diplomatic settlement is immensely challenging as well as critically urgent.

The United States, once a party to the 2015 deal, has become its principal spoiler. While the JCPOA effectively capped Iran’s nuclear activities, the first Trump administration terminated it and reimposed more than 1600 sanctions. The Biden administration, despite initial pledges to revive diplomacy, maintained the majority of Trump-era sanctions. Under the second Trump presidency, the US returned to its “maximum pressure” tactic, seeking to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero and snap back international sanctions.

The Europeans, meanwhile, have struggled to reconcile their stated support for the JCPOA with its reluctance to defy Washington. Having consulted Tehran on a possible new deal, they cooperated with the US to convene a closed-door UN Security Council meeting recently to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme. This is perceived by the Iranians as kowtowing to the US position.

Amid the deadlock, China stepped forward to be a peacemaker. The Asian nation, which brokered Saudi-Iran rapprochement in 2023, invited Iranian and Russian diplomats to a trilateral meeting in Beijing in March. According to a joint statement of the three-way gathering, Iran “reiterated that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes and not for development of nuclear weapons”, hinting that the diplomatic process is still breathing. To bring it back to life, China proposed a common-sense formula that is worth a close examination.

First, replacing coercion with respect

Washington needs to recognise that its “maximum pressure” approach is failing. A return to the JCPOA should not be seen as a concession to Iran, but as a necessary step to maintain the integrity of the non-proliferation regime and re-establish trust with key international partners.

Calling for talks while maintaining “maximum pressure” is self-defeating. Instead of making Iran surrender, the strategy pushed the country further down the nuclear path. Iranian leaders have rejected direct negotiations with the US. As Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi put it, “If we enter negotiations while facing maximum pressure, we would be negotiating from a position of weakness and would gain nothing.”

President Donald Trump says he is good at making deals. It should not be too hard to see that removing the unilateral sanctions is crucial for meaningful negotiations to start.

Second, balancing rights and obligations

The JCPOA involved reasonable give-and-take. Iran signed it to preserve its nuclear program; it clearly has no interest in negotiating anything that eliminates its nuclear capabilities. Others signed up to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In any future deal, Iran’s obligation to keep its nuclear activities peaceful must be balanced by its right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Gradual, reciprocal concessions could help rebuild trust.

It is also important not to punish good behaviour. There is no denying that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have advanced, but there is no conclusive evidence that they are intended for weapons development. The International Atmoice Energy Agency is working on a comprehensive assessment report, which could be the basis for UN Security Council actions. The nuclear watchdog should call a spade a spade and duly recognise Iranian compliance. Otherwise, Tehran won’t feel it’s worth going down a constructive path.

Third, building on what works

For all its flaws, the JCPOA remains the only viable framework on the table. It is a modest success story of multilateralism despite the spiral of non-compliance in recent years. Its possible replacement should build on it, not write it off.

The deal worked in part because it was laser-focused on addressing the nuclear issue. Regional issues and conventional military capabilities, if included, would complicate the matter; they are better addressed in separate agreements.

Europe played a key role in the negotiation and implementation of the JCPOA. European leaders should not hesitate to assert an independent voice and resist US pressure to abandon the deal altogether. With its history of engagement with Iran and its role in the creation of the JCPOA, Europe is uniquely positioned to lead the way towards a new deal. That requires a bold reassertion of European autonomy.

The Iranian nuclear crisis is a litmus test of what kind of international order we want to build. Diplomacy is not without its challenges, but it is worth a shot. As Winston Churchill allegedly said, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” The alternative — a descent into conflict — would be a catastrophic failure of statecraft.