TEHRAN – In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Glenn Diesen, a Norwegian political scientist and professor specializing in international relations, offered a critical perspective on the U.S. approach toward Iran’s nuclear program and the escalating tensions across West Asia.
Iran is currently preparing for a potential new round of U.S.-Israeli aggression while emphasizing that it will continue to operate its peaceful nuclear program. In his remarks to the Tehran Times, Diesen explored the strategic objectives driving U.S. policy towards Iran, Europe’s alignment with Washington, and the risks of a broader conflict. He also reflected on recent U.S.-Russia diplomatic exchanges, pointing to the shifting dynamics of global power.
Below is the full text of the interview:
How would you assess the current U.S. stance on nuclear talks with Iran amid escalating military actions and Iran’s firm stance on its nuclear rights?
I don’t believe the United States recognizes any inherent nuclear rights for Iran. Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits them from developing nuclear weapons. However, the treaty also permits Iran to pursue all activities related to nuclear energy, and this is precisely what the United States is trying to prevent.
In my view, the core issue is that the U.S. will not concede on this point and cannot be compelled to do so. I suspect that, following the end of this nuclear standoff, another war is likely in the foreseeable future.
What political or strategic objectives do you think the U.S. is pursuing in its approach to Iran’s nuclear issue beyond nonproliferation?
If the United States’ sole objective was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons or to establish oversight of its nuclear program, that goal could be achieved.
Iran has stated that it does not want to develop nuclear weapons and is willing to allow inspections to verify this. However, I believe the U.S. is approaching the matter dishonestly by conflating the nuclear issue with other, unrelated issues.
The U.S. not only wants Iran to sever ties with its allies in Yemen, Lebanon, and Palestine, but it also wants Iran to impose limits on its ballistic missile program. By combining all these demands, they aim to maximize coercion against Iran. Essentially, they are seeking Iran’s complete capitulation, which is unlikely to happen.
This is why I believe another conflict is on the horizon. They are not simply seeking transparency and limitations on the nuclear issue. I think the American public should understand this underlying motivation.
Considering European countries’ compliance with U.S. sanctions and their use of the snapback mechanism, what is your analysis of Europe’s independent role versus its alignment with U.S. foreign policy on Iran?
Well, I think one can look more on that. I don’t believe the Europeans have an independent foreign policy.
The Europeans tend to follow America’s lead, making them essentially vassals of the United States.
The key question is: how does one become a vassal? Well, if your economic well-being is solely dependent on the United States, then you become a vassal. To avoid this, you need to diversify your economic ties. The problem is that America consistently undermines European efforts to do so.
They sever economic ties with Russia, Iran, and China, ultimately forcing the Europeans to accept their dependence on the U.S. This is why America can dictate policy to the Europeans. They strategically establish economic and security dependence, making independent political action impossible.
I think the Europeans genuinely want to maintain the nuclear deal with Iran. However, America exerts pressure on the Europeans, and sadly, they won’t follow through on their promises.
How do you interpret the strategic implication of Israel and U.S. military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear sites and infrastructures?
Well, to start, it’s incredibly reckless and counterproductive. Iran gains know-how and materials from this situation.
The original intention seemed to be to convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. However, this action could have the exact opposite effect. Nuclear weapons are, after all, considered the ultimate deterrent.
Essentially, they’re giving Iran a strong incentive to acquire nuclear weapons. I hope Iran doesn’t, because that might provoke a similar response. Ultimately, I don’t think there’s a good outcome here.
It diminishes their security. Attacking nuclear facilities would simply make people around the world reconsider their stance on nuclear proliferation. I’m not advocating for intervention, but I think this is a crucial conversation for the global community.
It seems the goal was a decapitation strike: collapsing the Iranian government and then, ideally, installing a leader loyal to the United States.
They often face mockery, but then you see a new, robust United States. The way they embraced the Shomron regime in Syria is telling. It’s quite obvious that promoting democracy in Iran is simply how policies are sold to the public, portraying themselves as the good guys.
However, it doesn’t necessarily translate into actual policy. I believe they’re aiming for a decapitation strike, replacing the current leadership with someone who will follow Washington’s lead and not stand in Israel’s way. The Europeans can be proud of that.
What impact do you think these attacks have on the regional balance of power and the prospects for wider conflict or escalation?
The region is becoming incredibly complex. I assume the objective is also to build an anti-Iranian bloc among the [Persian] Gulf states and ensure that Iran faces significant opposition. However, I believe the last few years have been largely unproductive. We’ve seen that Iran, Yemen, and groups like Hamas in Gaza have consistently stood up.
They know they were able to fight back against America, even Yemen. Now, I think many recognize that Iran has largely won this conflict against Israel. So, again, it’s unproductive. The main objective seems to be to provoke Iran into intervening and mobilizing a larger grouping of states and regions, because there’s currently an incentive for Saudi Arabia and the [Persian] Gulf states to reconcile some of their differences with Iran. Countries like China and Russia would likely advocate for this.
However, if you’re an empire pursuing global dominance, as the U.S. does, you need to divide the region into opponents and allies, and keep the allies relatively weak. If strong actors emerge, then the U.S. or the more assertive [Persian] Gulf states would likely work to weaken Iran. Therefore, I think the primary effort is focused on further destabilizing the region and realigning their allies.
How do you interpret the strategic outcomes of the Putin-Trump summit, and what did Russia gain diplomatically from this meeting?
Well, the main achievement for Trump in the last four months is a ban on the idea of a ceasefire. It’s important to remember that the U.S. had threatened Russia with a separate ceasefire proposal, but the Russians clearly stated that they would not agree to a ceasefire because, in their view, a ceasefire doesn’t necessarily lead to peace. They diplomatically oppose Ukraine joining NATO, viewing it as a threat.
They want the situation before NATO expansion to be restored, and they see this restoration as essential. They consider NATO expansion the root cause of the war, a problem that has been building for 30 years as NATO and the U.S. have moved closer and closer to Russian borders, something the Russians have consistently rejected.
So, the Russians want this prior situation restored. Without a ceasefire, there’s constant pressure on Ukraine to accept their demands, demands they’ve been making for 30 years and have always been denied. Now they have an opportunity to address this issue directly.
If the fighting stops, there’s no pressure on the U.S. to offer Ukraine support, which the Russians see as only prolonging the conflict. Therefore, a ceasefire doesn’t make sense from the Russian perspective, because they are willing to negotiate a peace agreement that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict, namely, the presence of NATO soldiers and forces in Ukraine. If that can be achieved, I think there is a path to peace. That’s why the last point is so important, because the Americans are unable to accept this condition.
Of course, there are many other issues that need to be resolved as well.
Do you see Trump’s post-summit pivot toward ceasefire talks as a validation of Russia’s resilience strategy?
Definitely. Initially, when Russian forces entered Ukraine in February 2022, Zelenskyy confirmed that the Russians had contacted them, expressing a desire to discuss a peaceful settlement and avoid war.
However, when the United States and Britain agreed to dismiss all talks and essentially reject a negotiated agreement, the nature of the war changed. Remember that those countries refused to pursue diplomacy with Russia and instead, pumped weapons into Ukraine, effectively saying, “Hold your ground on the battlefield.”
At that point, the war transformed into a war of attrition, meaning the side that runs out of resources first will lose. Consequently, Russia changed its strategy.
They began systematically destroying the Ukrainian army. They have now reached a point where the Ukrainian army is beginning to collapse, and the Russians won’t be able to seize much more territory.
The Europeans, the Americans, Zelenskyy, and others have tried to re-enter the fight. We are now entering a very interesting phase of the conflict, given how it all began.
How did the White House summit with Zelensky and European leaders expose fractures in transatlantic unity?
Neither China nor the United States wants to be bogged down in a losing war in Ukraine. They would both prefer to disengage, leave the situation to the Europeans, redirect their military aid, and focus on the East.
The Europeans, however, fear that if the war ends, the United States will shift its attention from Ukraine to what they perceive as a vulnerable Europe. Therefore, the Europeans believe they have a lot to lose if the U.S. leaves and their primary objective is to find a way to keep the Americans engaged in the conflict.
Essentially, the Americans would like to find a way to exit the war, while the Europeans want to keep them involved. This is the fundamental difference between the two sides.
How do these diplomatic events reflect the broader U.S.-China-Russia triangle? And is Europe being sidelined?
Yes, very much so.
I think there’s a general recognition within the United States that the situation is a disaster. It’s also a political consequence of the effort to unite the major global powers against a common goal, essentially using them collectively to advance U.S. interests.
There was also likely a calculation that if Ukraine could be used to weaken or defeat Russia, then the focus could be shifted to China. However, that strategy didn’t work; the Russians have effectively won this conflict.
Now, several different powers are considering reaching out to Russia. The Europeans have resisted this strongly, but there’s a growing sentiment that once the conflict with Russia ends, the focus should shift to China. The problem is that this leaves little room for Europe.
They lack strong diplomatic leverage and have few significant partnerships at the moment, leaving them largely on the sidelines. The future of Ukraine will be largely decided by Washington.
The Europeans are not really included in these decisions, which is difficult for them to accept. They would like to be part of the discussions, but at the same time, they are hesitant to engage with Russia, still believing that the Transatlantic Partnership depends on their ability to continue opposing Russia.
In conclusion, I’d like to know your final thoughts and predictions on the subjects we’ve been discussing.
Regarding the Ukrainian front, I think it’s worth noting that we’ve reached what are effectively the final stages of the war. This is usually when countries on the front lines begin to collapse, both in terms of communication and overall stability. We see a huge spike in casualties, increased desertions, and more frequent surrendering. All these indicators suggest that a turning point is near.
Therefore, the current push for a peaceful settlement, even if it results in a less-than-ideal peace agreement, is ultimately a Western decision. It’s a pragmatic move, acknowledging that a prolonged war in Russia, or in Ukraine specifically, while concerning for Europe, isn’t sustainable. The alternative is a complete collapse.
It’s a choice between a bad deal and an even worse deal. The Europeans have now paved the way for what is likely a worse deal.
Regarding Germany’s recent actions, in my view, they are mirroring the former U.N. policy actions toward Iran. I understand the rationale, but I believe it’s misguided. Furthermore, this push to complete the list of demands won’t necessarily align with Iran’s ongoing progress in talks with the United States.
This is significant because there’s been no progress forward with the United States. It’s also somewhat disingenuous, considering their initial support for the U.S. pulling out of the JCPOA. Now, they are placing pressure on Iran, instead of the United States.
This isn’t a reflection of any inherent value or truth; it’s simply about loyalty, loyalty to the United States.
And, yes, they will frame this narrative to justify their actions, making them appear righteous.