Iran’s Nuclear Diplomacy and Strategic Alliance Realignment:

Cracks in the Middle Eastern Order and the Future of Multilateral Diplomacy

Seonghoon Paik

Senior Researcher, HIMEA

Strengthening Ties with China and Russia: A New Phase in Iran’s Diplomatic Strategy

As Iran prepares to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States, it is simultaneously reinforcing diplomatic coordination with its strategic allies—China and Russia. This signals a clear shift in the Middle Eastern diplomatic landscape. Israel, alarmed by Iran’s renewed nuclear activities, has hinted at possible military action, while Iran is responding by expanding its Eastward-oriented multilateral diplomacy to counter such threats. This diplomatic maneuver goes beyond nuclear negotiations, reflecting a broader realignment of strategic order in the Middle East and the international community.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Visits Beijing: A Revival of Multilateral Diplomacy

The visit of Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to China and his announcement to share updates on the nuclear negotiations represent more than a mere preliminary consultation. It underscores that the nuclear talks are not a unilateral dialogue with the U.S. but a complex multilateral negotiation entangled with global strategic interests.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei emphasized, “China and Russia are the core pillars of Iran’s diplomacy,” and described ongoing consultations with JCPOA member states as not only a diplomatic principle but a strategic asset. China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, holds decisive influence over all international sanction regimes related to Iran’s nuclear program.

Although China’s Foreign Ministry has not officially confirmed the visit, the accumulated strategic trust between the two countries grants this event more than symbolic significance. In recent years, Beijing has expanded its role as a mediator in Middle Eastern diplomacy, and its ties with Iran—driven by energy security, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the U.S.-China power rivalry—have grown increasingly vital.

Strategic Calculations Surrounding the Revival of the JCPOA

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful uses in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. However, the U.S. withdrawal under the Trump administration in 2018 effectively nullified the agreement, prompting Iran to gradually resume its nuclear activities.

Iran’s uranium enrichment level has now reportedly reached 60%, a high-risk threshold that the IAEA continues to warn against. This figure is dangerously close to the 90% level required for nuclear weapons, suggesting Iran’s technical capabilities are nearing a military-grade threshold.

U.S. negotiator Steve Witkoff initially demanded a rollback of enrichment levels, but soon shifted to calling for a complete shutdown of the program. This reflects a lack of policy coherence in Washington and adds tension to the negotiation table.

Israeli Opposition and the Politicization of Regional Tensions

Israel has consistently expressed its readiness for military action in response to Iran’s potential nuclear weaponization. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that “the moment Iran possesses nuclear weapons, we will take immediate and resolute action,” essentially formalizing Israel’s right to military self-defense. These statements suggest the existence of operational plans, not mere diplomatic posturing.

Iran has criticized Israel’s stance as a “political performance to justify militarization,” accusing Tel Aviv and U.S. war hawks of colluding to sabotage the negotiations. This shows Iran is not simply defending its nuclear technology but is actively shaping international public opinion through strategic diplomacy.

The strong U.S.-Israel military alliance remains a structural obstacle to both regional military balance and diplomatic progress. In response, Iran is focusing on expanding its network of alliances and diplomatic influence rather than resorting to direct military confrontation.

Expanding the Eastern Strategy: Agreements with Russia and Ties with China

Iran and Russia recently formalized a 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty that institutionalizes bilateral cooperation in security, energy, and technology. This pact signifies a joint intent to resist the U.S.-led international order, elevating it beyond mere political declaration.

Facing diplomatic isolation due to the Ukraine war and broader security conflicts in Europe, Russia is turning to the Middle East and Asia to build new foreign policy networks. Iran, capitalizing on this opening, seeks to mitigate its geopolitical isolation by deepening ties with Moscow.

Iran’s relationship with China spans multiple layers: energy exports, digital currency cooperation, and financial collaboration through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Through this multilateral web, Iran aims to neutralize the impact of U.S. unilateral sanctions.

The Next Round of Negotiations and the Future of the Middle East Order

The upcoming third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, to be held in Oman, will be a crucial test not only for resolving technical issues but for shaping the future strategic stability of the Middle East. While Iran enhances its diplomacy with China and Russia, the U.S. grapples with domestic political uncertainty and declining global leadership. Meanwhile, Israel has adopted a more hardline diplomatic stance.

Thus, the negotiations will not only determine the fate of Iran’s nuclear program but also offer a litmus test for whether the Middle East can shift from a Western-centric unipolar structure to a more balanced multipolar diplomatic order.

The international community’s response will depend on a reassessment of sanctions policy, the design of trust-building mechanisms, and the diplomatic capabilities of third-party mediators. These talks must aim not only to resolve a nuclear dispute but also to draft a blueprint for the region’s future order.

Prospects for a Nuclear Deal: Between Cautious Optimism and Structural Uncertainty

The likelihood of a successful agreement in the ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations remains highly uncertain. Although both sides have returned to the table, suggesting reduced diplomatic tension, meaningful breakthroughs face multiple structural constraints. The prospects hinge on three key variables: domestic political dynamics in both countries, the technical complexity of the issues, and external interventions.

First, both sides face significant domestic political constraints. The U.S., heading into a presidential election, may benefit politically from restoring the JCPOA, but conservative hardliners and Israeli pressure pose serious risks to compromise. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards and conservative clerical elites maintain strong anti-American sentiment. The regime is also leveraging external threats to convert internal economic discontent into support for regime security, limiting its negotiation flexibility.

Second, the talks have evolved beyond technical details to matters of strategic trust. The U.S. initially called for a return to 3.67% enrichment levels, then shifted to demanding a complete halt of the enrichment program. Iran perceives this as an unjust demand without security guarantees. Tehran now insists on both justification and assurance for reducing enrichment, while Washington views this as a near-nuclear threshold strategy. At its core, the obstacle is not technical disagreement but entrenched mutual distrust.

Third, Israel’s aggressive stance and Iran’s Eastward strategy further complicate the diplomatic environment. Viewing Iran’s nuclear development as a red line, Israel keeps military options on the table—constraining U.S. negotiators. Simultaneously, Iran is leveraging its ties with Russia and China to shift the negotiation framework away from U.S. dominance, adding to the political complexity.

Given these variables, the prospects for a full-scale agreement in the short term remain dim. However, diplomacy does not require a final resolution to be effective—sustaining the negotiation process itself can be a strategic objective. Interim deals, such as freezing enrichment levels, expanding IAEA inspections, or partially lifting sanctions, could serve as realistic options to ease domestic political burdens while preserving the diplomatic track.

Ultimately, a successful agreement hinges not just on technical compromise, but on mutual political assurances for regime security, restoration of diplomatic trust, and the revival of multilateral mediation frameworks. The future of these negotiations, therefore, extends far beyond Iran’s nuclear issue, directly impacting the overall stability of the Middle Eastern order. The international community must recognize that this is a moment demanding both diplomatic imagination and strategic patience.