Iran and the United States: Between War, Distrust, and Fragile Diplomacy

Relations between Iran and the United States have entered a phase in which the line between war and diplomacy appears increasingly fragile with each passing day. Military attacks, mutual threats, a crisis in energy transit routes, and efforts by mediators to bring both sides back to the negotiating table present a complex picture of a crisis whose consequences extend beyond the Middle East. For Europe, this situation is not merely a distant dispute between Tehran and Washington; rather, it is an issue related to security, the economy, foreign policy, and the stability of the international order.

Following the US and Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28, 2026, the conflict entered a more direct and wider phase. According to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations, these attacks led to the killing of Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, and the targeting of Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. Iran, in response, carried out attacks against targets associated with its adversaries, and the crisis expanded to the regional level. Although ceasefires and temporary agreements were established to reduce the fighting, fundamental disagreements have remained unresolved.

Under these circumstances, the main question is no longer simply which side has managed to inflict greater military damage. The more important question is whether this confrontation can lead to lasting political and security arrangements, or whether the region will remain trapped in a cycle of attacks, retaliation, and fruitless negotiations for years to come.

The Roots of the Dispute: An Issue Beyond the Nuclear Program

The disagreement between Iran and the United States has a long history and cannot be limited to developments in recent years. The 1953 coup against the government of Mohammad Mossadegh, Washington’s support for the rule of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and the 1979 Islamic Revolution are among the events that have played a role in shaping distrust between the two countries. The US Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran also severed diplomatic relations between the two sides and laid the groundwork for long-standing hostility.

From the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran, US policy in the region is linked to efforts to limit Iran’s strategic independence and maintain Israel’s military superiority, along with that of Washington’s allies. Iranian officials also regard economic sanctions and the US military presence around Iran as signs of pressure on the country’s political system. In contrast, Washington has identified Iran’s nuclear program, the development of ballistic missiles, Tehran’s support for regional armed groups, and the Islamic Republic’s threats against Israel as among its most significant security concerns.

The United States says that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and reducing its ability to threaten its regional allies are among the main objectives of its policy. These two narratives each stem from different experiences and security calculations; however, neither one alone explains the entire reality. A country’s security concerns do not, in themselves, legitimize all the means it employs. The same principle applies to both Iran and the United States.

What Has the War Changed?

The military attacks of 2026 demonstrated that deterrence among Iran, the United States, and Israel has no longer been able to prevent direct confrontation. For years, a large part of the rivalry among these actors was conducted through sanctions, intelligence operations, limited attacks, and indirect conflicts. Now, with these boundaries having been crossed, the risk of miscalculation and the unintended expansion of the war has increased.

From Washington’s perspective, military attacks can weaken Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities and increase the cost of Tehran’s regional actions. However, damage to infrastructure does not necessarily mean that political disagreements have been resolved. Even if part of a country’s military capabilities is destroyed, its security concerns, strategic motivations, and regional disputes may remain.

On the other hand, Tehran faces the reality that continued military confrontation could impose heavy human and economic costs on Iranian society. Nevertheless, external pressure does not necessarily lead to the political change sought by the opposing side. Under certain circumstances, war can strengthen nationalist sentiments and make the domestic environment more securitized.

Therefore, the military outcome of the war should not be equated with its political outcome. Weakening a military capability, changing a political system, reaching a nuclear agreement, and establishing lasting security are four different objectives, and achieving one of them does not guarantee the achievement of the other three.

The Nuclear Issue: A Dispute That Remains Unresolved

Iran’s nuclear program has been at the center of disagreements between Tehran and Washington for years. Iran emphasizes its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and argues that it’s program should not be treated as conclusive evidence of an attempt to develop nuclear weapons. The United States and its allies, in contrast, are concerned about the level of uranium enrichment, the size of nuclear material stockpiles, and restrictions on monitoring.

The 2015 nuclear agreement, which was reached with the participation of Iran, the United States, European countries, Russia, and China, was an example of how negotiations could contain a dispute. However, the US withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, followed by Iran’s reduced compliance with parts of its nuclear commitments, severely undermined trust between the parties.

Today, the issue is not only about the level of uranium enrichment. Any potential agreement must also provide clear answers regarding international monitoring, inspectors’ access, the fate of nuclear materials, sanctions, and enforcement guarantees. Without a mechanism for verification, an agreement may merely create a brief pause in the crisis.

At the same time, military attacks on nuclear facilities alone cannot replace a reliable monitoring system. If the path to diplomacy remains blocked, uncertainty surrounding nuclear activities may increase, along with concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region.

The Strait of Hormuz: When a Regional Crisis Becomes a Global Issue

One of the most important dimensions of the crisis is the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic passage through which a large share of global oil and gas trade passes. Disruptions along this route can affect energy prices, maritime transport costs, ship insurance, and the expectations of global markets.

During the conflicts, restrictions on the passage of ships and reciprocal military actions have created serious concerns about the security of energy supplies. The temporary agreement of June 14, 2026, mediated by Pakistan, included the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the start of negotiations on unresolved issues; however, such an agreement alone does not guarantee that freedom of navigation will be maintained in the long term.

For European countries, this issue is of particular importance. Even countries whose direct energy imports from the Persian Gulf are limited can be affected by rising global oil and gas prices, production and transportation costs, and inflationary pressures.

Rising energy prices can also put pressure on low-income households, energy-intensive industries, and small businesses. As a result, the cost of a military conflict may be felt in the daily lives of citizens who have no role in the decision-making of Tehran or Washington.

Europe: Between Political Pressure and the Need for Mediation

The European Union faces a difficult position in this crisis. On the one hand, concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, regional military activities, and human rights violations limit the possibility of normalizing relations with Tehran unconditionally. On the other hand, an escalation of the war could endanger Europe’s security and economic interests.

The European Council’s official position in June 2026 welcomed the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States and emphasized the need for a negotiated resolution of disagreements, the restoration of freedom of navigation, and cooperation with regional mediators. The European Union has also called for addressing concerns related to Iran’s missile program and human rights situation.

This position shows that Europe is trying to pursue two objectives simultaneously: preventing the expansion of the war and maintaining political pressure on Tehran regarding issues it considers threats to security or violations of fundamental rights.

For Belgium, developments in Iran are not merely a foreign policy issue either. The country operates within the framework of the European Union’s common policy and European security cooperation and is sensitive to cross-border threats against journalists, political opponents, and Jewish communities.

In June 2026, Belgian officials, together with several other countries, expressed concern about threats and activities attributed to Iran’s security institutions and alleged attacks in Europe. However, it is essential for European media to distinguish between the official positions of governments, security allegations, and judicial findings that have been proven.

Neutrality does not mean ignoring threats; rather, it means carefully examining the evidence and avoiding generalizing allegations to an entire national or ethnic community.

The People of Iran: The Cost That Gets Lost in the Calculations of Power

In analyzing relations between Tehran and Washington, focusing on governments, missiles, sanctions, and diplomatic agreements may push a fundamental reality to the margins: the people of Iran are the primary ones bearing the economic and social consequences of this crisis.

Sanctions, economic uncertainty, reduced trade and investment opportunities, and the costs of war put pressure on citizens’ daily lives. Military attacks also increase the risk of civilian deaths, infrastructure destruction, displacement, and disruptions in access to essential services.

Under these circumstances, defending the rights of the Iranian people should not be reduced to automatic support for the policies of any foreign or domestic government. Opposition to repression and human rights violations in Iran is not contradictory to opposition to war against Iran. Similarly, criticism of US policies does not mean endorsing all the actions of the Islamic Republic.

This distinction is essential for an impartial report. Iranian society is not a unified actor with a single viewpoint; citizens, social groups, and different political movements may hold different views regarding the government, sanctions, war, and the country’s future.

Can Diplomacy Still Succeed?

A report published on October 12, 2026, by Anadolu Agency, citing the spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, indicates that Tehran is reviewing US proposals for negotiations and that the exchange of messages through Pakistan and Qatar is continuing. This development shows that despite the conflicts, communication channels have not been completely closed.

However, the continuation of contacts should not be mistaken for a definite move towards an agreement. The two sides still disagree over the nuclear program, sanctions, regional security, and freedom of navigation. Any lasting agreement requires clear commitments, verification mechanisms, and arrangements that increase the cost of violating the agreement for the parties involved.

Mediation by Pakistan and Qatar, together with the potential role of other regional and European actors, could create conditions for reducing tensions. However, the success of the mediators depends on whether Tehran and Washington are willing to step back from some of their maximalist demands.

A limited agreement that only halts the fighting may be valuable from a humanitarian and economic perspective; but if the main issues are postponed to the future, the risk of the crisis returning will remain.

Military Victory Is Not Enough

The Iran US crisis is a test for international diplomacy, one whose outcome could affect the security of the Middle East, the future of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and Europe’s economic stability. The experience of recent years shows that sanctions, military threats, and limited operations alone have failed to resolve the fundamental disagreements between the two countries.

At the same time, negotiations without effective monitoring and enforceable commitments cannot quickly restore lost trust either. A lasting solution will likely require a combination of diplomacy, nuclear monitoring, guarantees of freedom of navigation, addressing regional security concerns, and respect for international law.

This path is not easy, and there is no guarantee of success; however, the cost of continuing the war, particularly for civilians, the regional economy, and European security, could be much heavier.

Ultimately, the true measure of success is neither the number of military targets destroyed nor the intensity of economic pressure on the opposing side, but the ability to prevent a new war and create conditions in which security, stability, and people’s rights are not sacrificed to the perpetual competition between major powers.