Nuclear Diplomacy versus Military Action: The Breakdown of Negotiations and Strategic Outcomes in the Iran-Israel-United States Conflict

Abstract

The failure of the nuclear diplomacy between Islamic Republic of Iran, the State of Israel and the United States in early 2026 and the subsequent launch of Operation Lion's Roar on 28 February 2026 are one of the most impactful shifts in international security since the Cold War's ends. This paper details the causal mechanisms that blocked the prospect of military escalation despite long multilateral negotiations and reviews systematically the outcomes of the negotiations that have reshaped the structures of security in the region and beyond. The analysis is based on Deterrence Theory, Coercive Diplomacy, Structural Realism, and Security Dilemma Theory to trace the process of diplomacy breaking down into armed conflict. The paper presents a critical analysis of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as a case of impermanent multilateral containment, and identifies the structural vulnerabilities that were uncovered by the unilateral withdrawal of the United States (US) in 2018 and Iran's continued enrichment activities since then. It also explores the three-step approach to preventing negotiations: Israel's preventive military strategy, the dual-track U.S. strategic approach, and Iran's nuclear nationalism. Comparative analysis of diplomatic and coercive instruments is used to evaluate strategic outcomes, such as regional destabilization, erosion of the non-proliferation regime, economic disruption and geopolitical realignment that result from military escalation. The paper ends with an outlook on forward-looking policy scenarios and recommendations for reconstructing a multilateral nonproliferation governance post-conflict.

Keywords: Nuclear Diplomacy, JCPOA, Iran Nuclear Program, Coercive Diplomacy, Deterrence Theory, Operation Lion's Roar, Middle East Security, Non-Proliferation