When New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters issued calls for “diplomatic solutions” to the escalating tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, they no doubt believed they were voicing a responsible, peace-oriented position. But for anyone who has followed Iran’s nuclear deception over the past two decades, this call reflects not pragmatism, but profound detachment from reality.
The unfortunate truth is that “diplomacy” has already been the default global response to the Iranian nuclear threat — for more than ten years. And what has it achieved? A regime now on the brink of nuclear weapons capability, with renewed threats against Israel, entrenched regional militancy, and emboldened defiance toward the international community.
The JCPOA: A Diplomatic Mirage
The most celebrated diplomatic effort was the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the Obama administration and European powers heralded as a breakthrough. It offered Iran sanctions relief in exchange for temporary restrictions on its uranium enrichment. But even at the time, the deal was riddled with flaws:
- Sunset clauses allowed Iran to resume advanced enrichment after a few years.
- The agreement failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program, a critical delivery system for nuclear warheads.
- Iran was allowed to retain its nuclear infrastructure, including underground enrichment facilities like Fordow.
- The regime’s compliance was limited, partial, and evasive, with restricted access granted to international inspectors.
The JCPOA did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions — it merely delayed them, allowing Iran to bide its time, retain its capabilities, and prepare for the day when constraints would lapse.
When the United States withdrew from the deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, Iran responded not with compromise, but with escalation: increasing uranium enrichment to near weapons-grade levels, barring inspectors, and accelerating its centrifuge development.
More Talks, Fewer Results
Since then, there have been countless rounds of negotiations, backchannels through European intermediaries, and quiet diplomacy under successive U.S. administrations. And still, Iran has only grown more belligerent:
- It stockpiles enriched uranium at 60% purity — just shy of weapons-grade.
- It continues to harass and threaten international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
- It arms and finances terrorist proxies including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas.
- It carried out a direct missile and drone attack on Israel in April 2024 — a dramatic escalation and the first time Iran attacked Israel from its own territory.
Against this backdrop, calling for “more talks” is not a bold or wise diplomatic stance. It is the same ineffective cycle that the West has indulged in for years — hoping that words might persuade a theocratic regime whose actions and ideology clearly signal otherwise.
A Regime That Doesn’t Hide Its Intent
Iran’s hostility is not speculative — it is explicitly and repeatedly declared. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei refers to Israel as a “cancerous tumour” that must be removed. Iranian military parades routinely feature banners reading “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” This is not populist sloganeering. These are central tenets of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy and revolutionary ideology.
Iran’s support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other violent Palestinian factions is a pillar of its regional strategy. Iran does not seek peace with Israel – rather its elimination. And yet New Zealand’s leaders — safe in the comfort of a South Pacific democracy — insist that dialogue is the path forward.
Diplomacy Requires Partners, Not Predators
Diplomacy can only succeed when both parties seek peaceful accommodation. Iran has used diplomacy as a strategic tool — not to resolve conflict, but to delay consequences while continuing its nuclear and military advancements.
The regime has proven itself a master of negotiation without compromise. While diplomats talk, Iran enriches. While negotiators shuttle between capitals, missiles are shipped to terror groups. While Western leaders issue statements, Iranian proxies ignite conflicts from Lebanon to Gaza.
To continue advocating talks without acknowledging this track record is not peace-making. It is enabling.
New Zealand Must Find Moral Clarity
New Zealand has a long and proud tradition of standing up for peace, justice, and the rule of law. But peace does not mean passivity, and justice does not mean appeasement. At some point, moral clarity demands recognising when a state actor is negotiating in bad faith — and when engagement merely serves to embolden a dangerous adversary.
Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to Israel, a destabilising force across the Middle East, and a direct challenge to international security norms. To suggest that this can be resolved through yet more negotiation, after more than a decade of failed talks, is either wilful blindness or foreign policy on autopilot.
Israel cannot afford such illusions. Nor should New Zealand indulge them.
Conclusion
The time for illusions is over. Iran has made its intentions clear. Endless diplomacy has only brought us closer to the brink. If New Zealand truly values peace and stability, it must recognise that appeasement is not peace—and that standing with Israel and the free world means holding Iran accountable, not extending it yet another diplomatic lifeline.
