Iran's System Before the World: Will Policy Change, or Just the Rhetoric?

A Moment of Pause

The United Nations General Assembly sessions in this session were not an ordinary occasion for exchanging diplomatic speeches. Regional crises arrived with questions that concern the entire world: the security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the future of Iran’s nuclear program, and the fate of states whose territories have turned into battlefields. At the heart of these questions stands the Iranian regime, facing a test that cannot be passed merely by changing its rhetoric, but requires a change in behavior.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the clearest example of the danger of linking global security to the balance of political confrontation. When navigation is disrupted or threatened, the repercussions extend to transportation and insurance costs, energy and food prices, reaching even countries far removed from the causes of the conflict. Iran has the right to defend its security and interests, but it is not permissible for a vital artery of the global economy to be turned into a bargaining chip whose costs are borne by peoples.

Digital Newspaper Archive

In-depth Political Analysis

Newspaper Classifieds

The strait crisis cannot be reduced to a single party; military operations and mutual pressures increase the likelihood of escalation. However, this does not absolve Tehran of its responsibility to ensure freedom of navigation, nor does it absolve other parties of the duty to open a serious path for de-escalation. What is needed are stable arrangements for the safe passage of ships, insulated from the fluctuations of negotiation and confrontation.

In the nuclear file, Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with its international obligations, but this right is coupled with transparency and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agency states that it lacks the necessary information and access to verify the current status of the enriched uranium stockpile, as well as certain activities and facilities. This gap cannot be closed by fatwas or political assurances, but only through effective inspections and the provision of necessary data. Conversely, concern over this ambiguity does not justify making claims unsupported by evidence.

From the UN platform, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam spoke about the state reclaiming its national decision-making, confining weapons and the decisions of war and peace to its institutions, and rejecting the transformation of Lebanon into a bargaining chip in the hands of others. He also called for a ceasefire, Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territories, and declared his country’s solidarity with Gulf states in the face of Iranian aggression. These positions affirm that sovereignty is indivisible, and that the future of Lebanon, like that of other states in the region, is determined by the Lebanese people through their state.

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has shifted the balance of influence in Syria, and the wars have harmed forces linked to Tehran. However, the decline of some instruments of influence does not mean their disappearance, nor does it negate Iran’s capacity to exert influence. The question is: does its leadership see these transformations as an opportunity to review its policy of intervention and confrontation, or does it cling to them despite their cost to the Iranian people and its neighbors?

During the New York sessions, signals from Tehran indicated a readiness for diplomacy, coupled with conditions related to military pressure and sanctions. These signals could form a window for settlement, but their value is measured by verifiable actions: safe and sustainable navigation, full cooperation with the IAEA, and respect for state sovereignty. Promises alone will not restore eroded trust.

Iran faces immense pressures, but predicting the capitulation or rapid collapse of its regime is not a sound basis for policy. Pressures may push it toward serious negotiation, or they may push it toward further hardening. In either case, Gulf states must hold firm to their security and unity of position, and support a settlement that protects the region with tangible results.

The message to Tehran is clear: no one wants another war, but the security of neighboring states, trade routes, and national decisions must not be used as instruments in their conflicts. If Tehran wishes to open a new chapter, the actions that neighbors can feel and the world can verify are where it begins.

Former Minister of Labor and Social Development of Bahrain