Iran’s Demands for Peace are just and Realistic? A Question of Justice, Sovereignty and Double Standards

5. The Nuclear Question: Security Assurances Must Be Reciprocal

Iran’s nuclear programme remains one of the most complicated and sensitive aspects of the negotiations. The international community has a legitimate interest in ensuring that nuclear technology is not diverted towards the development of nuclear weapons. Equally, Iran has a legitimate right, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation TreatyNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)An international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. and subject to its obligations and safeguards, to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.

The challenge is to reconcile these two considerations through a verifiable international agreement rather than through threats and military confrontation. Iran should be prepared to accept rigorous inspections, transparency and meaningful restrictions on activities that could contribute to the development of nuclear weapons. Such measures must be sufficiently comprehensive to provide the international community with credible assurances about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

In return, the United States and other participating countries should recognise Iran’s rights under the non-proliferation framework and commit themselves to the progressive removal of nuclear-related sanctions in accordance with verified compliance. An agreement must not become a mechanism through which Iran is permanently denied the peaceful application of nuclear science and technology.

There is also a larger question of consistency in the international nuclear order. The global debate cannot be confined to Iran while the nuclear capabilities of other countries, including those outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, remain largely untouched. Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, in particular, raises questions about the selective application of international non-proliferation concerns in West Asia. A regional approach to nuclear security would be far more credible if it addressed the security concerns and nuclear capabilities of all relevant states.

This is not an argument for allowing nuclear proliferation. It is an argument for applying non-proliferation principles consistently. A sustainable agreement must provide credible safeguards, respect legitimate peaceful nuclear rights and move towards a wider regional framework for nuclear restraint.

6. The Strait of HormuzStrait of HormuzA narrow, strategically important waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, crucial for global oil shipments.: A Shared International Responsibility

Iran’s position regarding the Strait of Hormuz requires particular attention because of its enormous strategic and economic significance. The Strait is one of the world’s most important maritime passages, connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider international shipping network. A substantial proportion of the world’s internationally traded petroleum passes through this narrow waterway, making its security a matter of global economic importance.

Iran has legitimate security interests in the region, particularly given its geographical position and the presence of foreign military forces in its neighbourhood. It cannot be expected to ignore threats to its own security while other powers maintain a substantial military presence around it. Nevertheless, its geographical proximity to the Strait does not give it an unrestricted right to control international maritime traffic or impose conditions on commercial shipping that undermine freedom of navigation.

The United States, equally, cannot treat the Strait as an area in which its military superiority automatically grants it the right to dictate arrangements. The security of this waterway must not become an extension of the strategic rivalry between Washington and Tehran.

A durable arrangement should establish internationally recognised guarantees for freedom of navigation, the safety of commercial vessels and the prevention of military escalation. Iran’s security concerns must be addressed alongside the interests of other Gulf countries and the wider international community. This is an area where international law, multilateral diplomacy and mutual guarantees should take precedence over unilateral demands.

7. The Larger Question: International Law and the Politics of Double Standards

Beyond the specific demands lies a much larger question that the international community cannot continue to avoid: why is the sovereignty of one country treated as more important than that of another? Why should military superiority confer political privileges that weaker nations are denied? And why are international principles invoked selectively, depending on the identity of the country accused of violating them?

The United States has repeatedly demanded that Iran respect international law, refrain from threatening regional stability and comply with international obligations. These expectations are not inherently unreasonable. However, Washington must also demonstrate its own commitment to the same principles. Military superiority cannot confer a special entitlement to attack another country, dictate its political future or determine the terms under which it participates in the international economic system.

The question of double standards becomes particularly significant when the international community considers the broader history of American military interventions, sanctions and political pressure. The sovereignty of countries in the Global South has frequently been treated as negotiable when it conflicts with the strategic and economic interests of powerful nations. Such an approach has weakened confidence in the international system and reinforced the perception that international law operates differently for the powerful and the vulnerable.

However, consistency also requires Iran to acknowledge that its own regional policies and military actions are subject to international scrutiny. Its relationships with armed groups, its regional security policies and its conduct towards neighbouring countries cannot be placed beyond examination simply because it is resisting American pressure.

International law cannot be a weapon wielded selectively against political adversaries. Nor can sovereignty become an unconditional justification for the actions of any government. The credibility of the international system depends on the willingness of all states, powerful and otherwise, to accept the same standards of accountability.

What Would Constitute a Fair Peace Agreement?

A balanced settlement would have to recognise that neither side can secure a lasting peace by demanding the unconditional capitulation of the other. The United States would need to accept that Iran has legitimate sovereignty and security interests, while Iran would have to provide verifiable assurances concerning its nuclear programme, maritime conduct and regional security policies.

A comprehensive agreement should therefore include an end to military hostilities throughout the region, mutual commitments against further attacks, and internationally credible mechanisms for monitoring compliance. It should provide for the negotiated release of legitimate frozen Iranian assets, the removal of restrictions that prevent lawful Iranian trade and respect for Iran’s political independence.

On the nuclear question, Iran should accept internationally monitored safeguards and transparent verification arrangements, while the United States and other parties should recognise Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear development under the applicable international framework. The agreement must also guarantee freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and establish a mechanism for resolving maritime disputes without resorting to military confrontation.

Equally important would be a commitment by all parties not to destabilise one another through military intervention, covert operations or attempts to impose political outcomes. Such a framework would require concessions from both sides, but that is precisely what diplomacy is expected to achieve. Negotiations are not exercises in demonstrating who has greater military strength. They are attempts to find a settlement that allows competing interests to coexist without the destruction and instability that war inevitably produces.

Conclusion: Peace Should Not Mean Surrender

The central question is not whether Iran should receive everything it demands. No country can reasonably expect to enter international negotiations and emerge without making concessions. The more important question is whether Iran’s demands are sufficiently legitimate to deserve serious and fair consideration, and whether the United States is prepared to negotiate on the basis of equality rather than military superiority.

My assessment is that most of Iran’s demands address legitimate concerns relating to sovereignty, security, economic independence and protection from military aggression. These are not privileges that powerful countries grant to weaker ones. They are fundamental principles of international relations that should apply equally to every sovereign nation.

At the same time, Iran must recognise that sovereignty carries responsibilities. It must respect international shipping, provide credible assurances about its nuclear programme and take seriously the legitimate security concerns of its neighbours. Its resistance to American intervention cannot become a justification for ignoring the rights and security of other countries in the region.

The United States, for its part, must abandon the assumption that its military and economic superiority entitles it to dictate the terms of peace. A country cannot claim to defend the international order while reserving for itself the right to determine which nations enjoy sovereignty, which governments are acceptable and which countries must submit to its strategic preferences.

There is also a wider lesson for the international community. Peace built upon humiliation, economic strangulation and the denial of national sovereignty is unlikely to endure. A settlement that merely compels Iran to surrender its negotiating position, without addressing the underlying causes of confrontation, would create the conditions for another crisis rather than resolve the present one.

The people of Iran have the right to live without the constant threat of military aggression and economic devastation. The American people, too, have little to gain from another prolonged and expensive war in West Asia. The people of the wider region, already exhausted by decades of conflict, displacement and instability, deserve an international order that places human security above geopolitical calculations.

Ultimately, peace must be measured not by the extent to which one country has defeated another, but by whether it creates conditions in which nations can coexist with dignity, security and mutual respect. The world needs fewer wars, fewer exercises in military intimidation and a renewed commitment to diplomacy grounded in international law.

Peace cannot mean unconditional surrender by the weaker party, nor can it mean that the stronger party is exempt from the obligations of international law. A just settlement must be founded on reciprocity, accountability, mutual respect and verifiable commitments. That is the difference between an agreement imposed by power and a peace achieved through justice.