THE saying “East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” once held true in ancient times, but today, with advances in communication and technology, it has become outdated. Yet, this mindset still influences Eastern elites, contributing to the ambiguous relationship between the West, Europe, and the Middle East. There is a long history of negotiations between Middle Eastern countries and the West and Europe, often ending in favor of the latter. Consequently, talks between the United States, Iran, and Europe frequently reveal ambiguity surrounding Iran’s stance, especially on critical existential issues like the nuclear program. Iranian negotiators often rely on a culture of ambiguity, manipulation of terminology, and postponement of decisions under the guise of further study.
On the other hand, a clear and direct response is the best way to resolve difficult issues that could otherwise cause more hardship for the people. Questions persist about Iran’s intentions to acquire a nuclear weapon, and why it enriches uranium to levels far beyond what is needed for peaceful nuclear activities, levels dangerously close to those required for producing a nuclear bomb.
This question is not only raised by the West and the United States but also by Iran’s friends and neighbors. Because the answers are unconvincing, ambiguity has become a core element of the issue. Even after the 2015 nuclear agreement was signed, Tehran failed to reassure the other parties involved. Consequently, the world witnessed that as soon as Washington withdrew from the agreement in 2018, Tehran rapidly increased its uranium enrichment to higher levels, threatening global peace and bringing Iran closer to possessing a nuclear bomb. Allowing inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iran’s nuclear reactors was insufficient, and surveillance cameras proved ineffective, as many nuclear facilities were undisclosed. This situation fueled doubts and suspicions that the Tehran regime has yet to dispel. Furthermore, a mere religious fatwa forbidding the possession and use of nuclear weapons is not enough to reassure the international community, especially since such fatwas can be quickly revoked or amended, as recent reports circulating from Iran indicate.
It is true that some countries have possessed nuclear weapons but have not used them, except for the United States, which dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945 and has since come to understand the horrific consequences of their use. Moreover, the world does not tolerate any country being subjected to an existential threat, especially when that country already exists, is internationally recognized, and enjoys the support of many Western and international nations, namely, Israel. Therefore, when former US President Trump stated that “Iran is raising the slogan of annihilating Israel and the United States,” it represents a serious threat to Western consciousness that cannot be dismissed or minimized as mere rhetoric for domestic audiences.
This issue has placed the current Iranian regime in a critical position and has become a major obstacle to any solution that could reassure the international community. This explains the muted international response to the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites. Tehran still looks to the example of isolated North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, yet the world collectively agrees to prevent their use, due to North Korea’s limited capabilities on one hand, and the reluctance of its own allies to permit the use of nuclear weapons on the other.
All of this stems from an Eastern culture of ambiguity, whereas what is truly needed is clarity in positions. Some may argue that Israel practices strategic ambiguity regarding its possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, this policy cannot be justified. Tel Aviv fully understands that any attempt to use nuclear weapons would provoke global condemnation, especially from the United States, which would be the first to punish Israel for crossing the red lines set by Washington and the West. Ultimately, Israel is a functioning state that cannot make unilateral decisions without consulting its allies, and those who are perceptive will understand this reality.
