Introduction

The nuclear question has once again moved to the forefront of global geopolitics. Following the U.S. strikes on Iran’s underground nuclear site at Fordow in June 2025, the E3 (Britain, France, Germany) invoked the “snapback” clause of the 2015 nuclear deal, citing Iranian violations. If diplomacy falters, UN sanctions on enrichment, arms transfers, finance, and shipping will return, escalating global risks. The crisis is magnified by the absence of verified facts after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) staff withdrew from Iran. In this environment of speculation and heightened risks, verification, not guesswork, must anchor diplomacy.

Why is this news significant?

The crisis is not just another Middle Eastern standoff; it is unprecedented in multiple ways. For the first time since 2015, the snapback clause has been triggered, threatening the revival of stringent UN sanctions. The crisis has exposed the vacuum of verified facts, as IAEA inspectors have been expelled, leaving the world to act on rumors. The stakes are global from oil markets and shipping insurance to regional stability and nuclear proliferation. For India, the challenge is sharper: ensuring uninterrupted oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, stability in its extended neighborhood, and the safety of 8 million Indian citizens in West Asia.

Why does the absence of IAEA verification matter?

1. Verification as the hinge of diplomacy: IAEA access substitutes speculation with facts and provides baselines for negotiations.
2. Market stability: Comparable IAEA presence in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant calmed global markets; similar oversight in Iran could reduce volatility.
3. Iran’s sovereignty concerns: Iran argues that inspectors compromise sovereignty and risk enabling strikes — past Israeli and U.S. strikes followed IAEA disclosures.
4. Parliamentary resistance: Such episodes have hardened Iranian domestic opposition to IAEA cooperation.

What are the risks if Iran withdraws from the NPT?

1. Legal vacuum: Withdrawal strips the IAEA of legal authority to inspect Iranian sites.
2. Escalation to uncharted territory: Harder sanctions, further isolation, and the military option returning to the table.
3. Global instability: From oil prices to nuclear proliferation, the fallout would be worldwide.

How is India placed in this unfolding crisis?

1. Bridge-builder role: As a long-standing IAEA Board member with ties across divides, India is well-positioned to facilitate consensus.
2. SCO and BRICS engagement: India joined others in condemning U.S.-Israel strikes, supporting a multilateral call for technical IAEA access.
3. Technical contribution: India’s IAEA-certified Tarapur facility could analyze samples under safeguards, providing credible support.
4. Energy and diaspora stakes: Protecting oil supplies and ensuring the safety of Indians abroad makes stability in West Asia non-negotiable for New Delhi.

What are the choices before the global community?

1. Diplomatic opening: Iran’s recent agreement with the IAEA in Cairo (Sept 9, 2025) and allowing inspectors at Bushehr offer small openings.
2. Snapback pause: If Iran extends verification to bombed sites, E3 may pause the snapback, shifting momentum back to diplomacy.
3. Alternative — escalation: Failure of diplomacy risks sanctions, military standoffs, and cycles of strike and counterstrike.

Conclusion

The Iran nuclear standoff represents a defining moment for global non-proliferation and regional stability. What the world requires today is not speculation, but credible verification, structured dialogue, and sustained diplomacy. For India, the stakes go beyond principles of international order to immediate concerns of energy security, diaspora protection, and regional peace. By using its credibility in multilateral forums and offering technical expertise, India can position itself as a constructive stakeholder. Ultimately, the crisis will test whether global powers can rise above unilateralism and competing interests to uphold collective security and prevent a slide into escalation.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2018] In what ways would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact Controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?

Linkage: The ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear pact controversy directly impacts India’s energy security, diaspora safety in West Asia, and regional stability. Escalation could disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz and complicate India’s strategic balance between the U.S., Iran, and Gulf states. India must respond with measured diplomacy, supporting verification through the IAEA while safeguarding its vital national interests.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now