In the shadowy chessboard of global power, a silent countdown has begun. One secret strike. One broken deal. One last chance at diplomacy slipping through the cracks. The world’s most volatile region stands inches from chaos, and at the heart of it all lies a forgotten agreement, the JCPOA. Once celebrated as a triumph of peace, now buried under sanctions, sabotage, and secrets. But something has shifted. Talks are stalling. Missiles are flying. And October 2025 could change everything.
What is the Iran Nuclear Deal?
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 by Iran and the P5+1, was a landmark agreement designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It imposed strict restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, limiting uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reducing centrifuges by two-thirds, and cutting its uranium stockpile by 98%. The IAEA was granted sweeping access to verify compliance.
In exchange, Iran was granted relief from crippling international sanctions, giving it access to billions of dollars in frozen assets and re-entry into global financial and energy markets. The deal was codified under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and hailed as a triumph of multilateral diplomacy. As of now, JCPOA & UNSC res. 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA, both are set to expire in Oct 2025.
What Went Wrong?
The JCPOA began to unravel in 2018 when the United States, under President Donald Trump, unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. This withdrawal reintroduced sanctions on Iran and marked a sharp departure from the consensus that had underpinned the deal. Iran responded by breaching enrichment limits and curbing IAEA access. By 2025, its breakout time to develop bomb-grade material has shrunk to mere weeks.
Recent backchannel talks between Iran and the U.S. brokered by Oman were derailed in June when Israeli airstrikes targeted IAEA-monitored nuclear facilities inside Iran. These attacks halted verification work and triggered fears of wider conflict.
Pakistan’s UN Warning: Reclaim Diplomacy Before It’s Too Late
At the UN Security Council on June 24, Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad stressed that despite the crisis, the JCPOA remains a blueprint for peaceful resolution. He condemned the attacks on safeguarded sites, calling them a violation of international law, UN resolutions, and IAEA safeguards.
Calling for restraint, Ahmad urged the Council to support a ceasefire and enable the IAEA to resume its verification role. He announced Pakistan, China, and Russia had submitted a revised resolution reaffirming diplomacy and non-aggression.
“The cost of resolving disputes through force is now obvious,” Ahmad said. “Diplomacy has delivered before, and it can again.”
Ahmad stressed that for a country like Pakistan, geographically and economically tied to Gulf stability, the stakes are especially high. He warned that the region is “one miscalculation away” from a potentially catastrophic war.
The Clock Is Ticking: Can the JCPOA Still Be Useful?
With key JCPOA provisions expiring in October 2025, time is running out. Without a renewed agreement or an alternative, global non-proliferation norms risk collapsing. The IAEA’s access remains blocked, and the region is one miscalculation away from conflict.
Pakistan, deeply impacted by Gulf instability, sees the deal’s restoration as essential for regional security. Ahmad called for the UN and IAEA to assess the damage caused by military strikes and facilitate renewed engagement.
Why Is It Back in the Spotlight?
The JCPOA worked until it was dismantled. It reduced Iran’s nuclear risk and opened space for diplomacy. Its survival now hinges on restoring trust and avoiding further escalation. Whether the international community reclaims the diplomatic path or watches the agreement collapse under pressure will define the future of nuclear diplomacy.
What is the JCPOA, and why is it back in the Spotlight
In the shadowy chessboard of global power, a silent countdown has begun. One secret strike. One broken deal. One last chance at diplomacy slipping through the cracks. The world’s most volatile region stands inches from chaos, and at the heart of it all lies a forgotten agreement, the JCPOA. Once celebrated as a triumph of peace, now buried under sanctions, sabotage, and secrets. But something has shifted. Talks are stalling. Missiles are flying. And October 2025 could change everything.
What is the Iran Nuclear Deal?
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 by Iran and the P5+1, was a landmark agreement designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It imposed strict restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, limiting uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reducing centrifuges by two-thirds, and cutting its uranium stockpile by 98%. The IAEA was granted sweeping access to verify compliance.
In exchange, Iran was granted relief from crippling international sanctions, giving it access to billions of dollars in frozen assets and re-entry into global financial and energy markets. The deal was codified under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and hailed as a triumph of multilateral diplomacy. As of now, JCPOA & UNSC res. 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA, both are set to expire in Oct 2025.
What Went Wrong?
The JCPOA began to unravel in 2018 when the United States, under President Donald Trump, unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. This withdrawal reintroduced sanctions on Iran and marked a sharp departure from the consensus that had underpinned the deal. Iran responded by breaching enrichment limits and curbing IAEA access. By 2025, its breakout time to develop bomb-grade material has shrunk to mere weeks.
Recent backchannel talks between Iran and the U.S. brokered by Oman were derailed in June when Israeli airstrikes targeted IAEA-monitored nuclear facilities inside Iran. These attacks halted verification work and triggered fears of wider conflict.
Pakistan’s UN Warning: Reclaim Diplomacy Before It’s Too Late
At the UN Security Council on June 24, Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad stressed that despite the crisis, the JCPOA remains a blueprint for peaceful resolution. He condemned the attacks on safeguarded sites, calling them a violation of international law, UN resolutions, and IAEA safeguards.
Calling for restraint, Ahmad urged the Council to support a ceasefire and enable the IAEA to resume its verification role. He announced Pakistan, China, and Russia had submitted a revised resolution reaffirming diplomacy and non-aggression.
“The cost of resolving disputes through force is now obvious,” Ahmad said. “Diplomacy has delivered before, and it can again.”
Ahmad stressed that for a country like Pakistan, geographically and economically tied to Gulf stability, the stakes are especially high. He warned that the region is “one miscalculation away” from a potentially catastrophic war.
The Clock Is Ticking: Can the JCPOA Still Be Useful?
With key JCPOA provisions expiring in October 2025, time is running out. Without a renewed agreement or an alternative, global non-proliferation norms risk collapsing. The IAEA’s access remains blocked, and the region is one miscalculation away from conflict.
Pakistan, deeply impacted by Gulf instability, sees the deal’s restoration as essential for regional security. Ahmad called for the UN and IAEA to assess the damage caused by military strikes and facilitate renewed engagement.
Why Is It Back in the Spotlight?
The JCPOA worked until it was dismantled. It reduced Iran’s nuclear risk and opened space for diplomacy. Its survival now hinges on restoring trust and avoiding further escalation. Whether the international community reclaims the diplomatic path or watches the agreement collapse under pressure will define the future of nuclear diplomacy.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
When Insurgents Rule: The Taliban’s Crisis of Governance
The Taliban’s confrontation with Pakistan reveals a deeper failure at the heart of their rule: an insurgent movement incapable of governing the state it conquered. Bound by rigid ideology and fractured by internal rivalries, the Taliban have turned their military victory into a political and economic collapse, exposing the limits of ruling through insurgent logic.
The Great Unknotting: America’s Tech Break with China, and the Return of the American System
As the U.S. unwinds decades of technological interdependence with China, a new industrial and strategic order is emerging. Through selective decoupling, focused on chips, AI, and critical supply chains, Washington aims to restore domestic manufacturing, secure data sovereignty, and revive the Hamiltonian vision of national self-reliance. This is not isolationism but a recalibration of globalization on America’s terms.
Inside the Istanbul Talks: How Taliban Factionalism Killed a Peace Deal
The collapse of the Turkiye-hosted talks to address the TTP threat was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated act of sabotage from within the Taliban regime. Deep factional divides—between Kandahar, Kabul, and Khost blocs—turned mediation into chaos, as Kabul’s power players sought to use the TTP issue as leverage for U.S. re-engagement and financial relief. The episode exposed a regime too fractured and self-interested to act against terrorism or uphold sovereignty.
The Indo-Afghan Arc: Rewriting Pakistan’s Strategic Geography
The deepening India-Afghanistan engagement marks a new strategic era in South Asia. Beneath the façade of humanitarian cooperation lies a calculated effort to constrict Pakistan’s strategic space, from intelligence leverage and soft power projection to potential encirclement on both eastern and western fronts. Drawing from the insights of Iqbal and Khushhal Khan Khattak, this analysis argues that Pakistan must reclaim its strategic selfhood, strengthen regional diplomacy, and transform its western border from a vulnerability into a vision of regional connectivity and stability.
Legitimacy, Agency, and the Illusion of Mediation
The recent talks in Turkey, attended by Afghan representatives, exposed the delicate politics of legitimacy and agency in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. By rejecting the Taliban’s proposal to include the TTP, Pakistan safeguarded its sovereignty and avoided legitimizing a militant group as a political actor, preserving its authority and strategic narrative.