Escalation in the Fog: Who Pays When Diplomacy Fails?

On June 13, Israel launched a sweeping military strike targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites, including key facilities like Natanz. In response, Iran fired missiles and drones into Israel, triggering alerts from Tel Aviv to Washington. As U.S. assets repositioned and diplomatic chatter intensified, one truth became increasingly clear: the world is hurtling toward confrontation without full visibility.

These are my thoughts.

Trump has always maintained that Iran should never obtain a nuclear weapon. That position has not changed. The real question is how to prevent that outcome without triggering a direct military confrontation or destabilizing the entire region.

Enrichment and Risk
Since 2021, Iran has restricted International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspector access to key sites, removed surveillance equipment, and enriched uranium to 60%, with isolated particle detections near 84%, according to IAEA reports. While weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment to around 90%, Iran's growing stockpile of 60% material shortens the time required to reach that threshold. Breakout time, the period needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb, shrinks as stockpiles grow. Critically, satellites cannot directly verify enrichment levels. Without inspectors on the ground, we lack certainty about the most sensitive part of the equation. Escalating without that certainty risks grave miscalculation.

Critics dismiss this as "TACO'ing"—Trump Always Chickens Out. However, history is replete with warnings about acting on partial intelligence. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq based on claims of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons were never found, despite extensive inspections, and the result was decades of destabilisation, human loss, and geopolitical blowback. Restraint in the face of degraded visibility is not fear. It is refusing to gamble with war. Yes, Iran’s opacity is dangerous, but opacity on one side does not justify recklessness on the other. To avoid such recklessness, the path forward lies in restoring clarity through verification.

Verification, JCPOA Context, and the Missed Opportunity
Of course, there is also a broader debate about who decides which nations can possess nuclear weapons and why. That is a valid conversation, one that sits at the heart of the global non-proliferation regime and its inconsistencies, but given the urgency of our current situation, it is one for another day.

Right now, if Iran has nothing to hide, the solution, at least to me, and I could be wrong, is simple: open the facilities. Let the IAEA back in. Alternatively, permit a joint inspection team composed of both G7 and BRICS-aligned observers, in full view of the world and media from both blocs. That would make the process harder to politicise and harder to dismiss. If Iran refuses, the world will see the obstruction, and any response will then proceed with eyes open.

The IAEA and Gulf states have tried to mediate. The U.S. has offered deals with tighter inspections. The most significant was the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Iran signed in 2015. It capped enrichment at 3.67%, reduced centrifuge counts, and granted the IAEA access to declared sites in exchange for sanctions relief. That deal held until the U.S. unilaterally withdrew in 2018 under the Trump administration.

While Iran complied with the 2015 JCPOA during its initial implementation, it began breaching its terms after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. These breaches included exceeding enrichment limits, expanding stockpiles, and limiting IAEA access.

Trump called the JCPOA a "bad deal" due to its sunset clauses allowing Iran to resume unrestricted enrichment after 2030, and its failure to address Iran’s ballistic missile program or regional proxy networks. His administration argued it delayed, rather than blocked, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and offered sanctions relief prematurely.

Under Biden, indirect negotiations aimed at reviving the JCPOA began in 2021. Although negotiators never finalised a deal, proposals aimed to freeze enrichment and restore IAEA monitoring in exchange for limited sanctions relief. Yet Iran’s nuclear activity continued expanding throughout this period.

Diversified Inspections, Enforcement, and the Mandate Gap
Building on past mediation attempts, a more inclusive inspection framework could break the impasse. Diversified inspections, involving both G7 and BRICS-aligned observers, remain untested but critical for non-aligned nations seeking clarity to avoid the fallout of escalation. Admittedly, some BRICS members, like Russia or China, may resist participation. Yet their refusal to endorse inspections would expose their 'anti-imperial' posturing as mere cover for enabling Tehran, simultaneously isolating Iran and vindicating the demand for transparency.

If Iran rejects this clear and inclusive offer, enforcement must follow a transparent, rules-based process. Pre-agreed sanctions should automatically trigger via a majority UN Security Council vote, or, if vetoed, through a coordinated U.S.-EU mechanism. This ensures a cost for obstruction without resorting to rhetorical ultimatums, safeguarding non-aligned interests from the tremors of reckless confrontation.

Some argue confrontation with Iran is inevitable, driven by its nuclear ambitions and regional actions backing Hezbollah and Houthi proxies, advancing ballistic missiles, and fueling anti-Israel rhetoric. For Israeli security hawks, a nuclear-capable Iran is not just a rival, it’s an existential threat. In Washington, some see assertive posture as the only language Tehran understands, especially amid electoral pressure. Meanwhile, think tanks and defence circles argue that delay invites risk. These are not fringe fears, but entrenched positions that shape real policy traction with global consequences.

Yet polling reveals a more complex mandate. The American public is not clamouring for war; it is being manoeuvred by elites allergic to nuance. Restraint polls better than airstrikes, but only one consistently makes headlines. A recent CNN survey found that 79% of Americans oppose Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, reflecting a strong deterrence consensus. However, a Washington Post poll found only 25% support airstrikes, with 45% opposed and the remainder undecided, underscoring widespread fatigue with military intervention. The result is a political tightrope: leaders must project strength without stumbling into war.

Double Standards, Regional Blowback, and the Enrichment Facade
Yet inspections alone will not address the deeper issue of who sets the global rules. This is not just about U.S. credibility or Iranian defiance. It is about who gets to define the rules and bend them without consequence. If a nuclear-armed Israel receives unconditional backing while Iran faces snapback threats for opacity, the message to the rest of us is chilling: might makes inspection optional. This inequity leaves non-aligned nations questioning the fairness of global governance.

We must also ask how regional powers might react. An unchecked escalation could spike oil prices, sending shockwaves through energy-dependent economies from Seoul to Lusaka, while triggering Houthi or Hezbollah retaliation. Gulf states would fracture between reactive alignment (with Washington) and quiet pressure (on Tehran) to preserve market stability. China, despite its anti-Western posturing, would privately restrain Iran to protect its oil imports, exposing BRICS' transactional hypocrisy.

Russia, meanwhile, would exploit the chaos to undermine U.S. credibility while dodging direct involvement. OPEC’s internal balancing would also be tested, as oil price volatility could trigger divergent incentives among producers, some seeking stability, others higher revenues from chaos. This coming storm of market instability and great power manoeuvring underscores why non-aligned nations must demand transparency. When oil markets convulse, our people starve while strategists in Washington, Moscow and Beijing calculate their next move.

Understanding Iran’s nuclear posture requires confronting a strategic imbalance that would alarm any regional power. A U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel faces off against a sanctioned Iran with no credible deterrent. That imbalance helps explain Tehran’s pursuit of leverage, even if it does not justify proliferation. Non-aligned countries should be concerned, not because we support Iran, but because we understand what double standards can unleash when left unchecked.

Nevertheless, it is vital to note that while Iran claims its 60% enriched uranium supports medical isotope production, no civilian program requires enrichment at that level. Modern medical reactors typically operate at less than 20%, in line with global non-proliferation norms. While some specialised research or naval reactors use higher enrichment, Iran lacks the infrastructure to justify or utilize 60% material for legitimate civilian purposes. Crucially, the IAEA has reported no operational Iranian facility capable of producing medical isotopes at scale with uranium enriched to that degree.

Strategic Discipline and the Non-Aligned Imperative
If we have not made a serious attempt at joint inspections or truly neutral verification, then it is fair to ask: why is direct confrontation being pushed so hard, by whom, and to what end?

There is no virtue in hesitation for its own sake. However, in moments of limited visibility and maximum volatility, a demand for clarity is a strategic discipline. If war breaks out, let it be because Iran refused the truth, not because we failed to seek it.

As someone who believes in strategic realism rather than ideological alliances, we owe it to ourselves to think beyond the binaries. For nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia, excluding China and Japan, clarity is our only shield against becoming collateral damage in someone else's war. When the powerful posture, the rest of us must demand proof, not permission.

Non-aligned states cannot afford to be spectators. When great powers escalate, it is our markets, our citizens, and our security that feel the tremors first. This is not merely about uranium or sanctions. It is about who bleeds when superpowers bluff, and who pays the greater price when diplomacy fails. Non-aligned nations must not inherit the fallout of another man’s provocation. After all, when the missiles start flying, whose homes burn deeper?

Dean N Onyambu is the Founder and Chief Editor of Canary Compass, a co-author of Unlocking African Prosperity, and the Executive Head of Treasury and Trading at Opportunik Global Fund (OGF), a CIMA-licensed fund for Africans and diasporans (Opportunik). Passion and mentorship have fueled his over 17-year journey in financial markets. He is a proud former VP of ACI Zambia FMA (@ACIZambiaFMA) and founder of mentorship programs that have shaped and continue to shape over 50 financial pros and counting! When he is not knee-deep in charts, he is all about rugby. His motto is exceeding limits, abounding in opportunities, and achieving greatness. #ExceedAboundAchieve

The Canary Compass Channel is available on @CanaryCompassWhatsApp for economic and financial market updates on the go.

Canary Compass is also available on Facebook: @CanaryCompassFacebook.

For more insights from Dean, you can follow him on LinkedIn @DeanNOnyambu, X @InfinitelyDean, or Facebook @DeanNathanielOnyambu.