The UK Foreign Office has issued a call for coordinated action among allies following what it describes as a 'confusing and contradictory' approach by the Trump administration toward Iran. The statement, released late Tuesday, urges the United States to adopt a consistent and predictable policy, warning that current oscillations risk destabilising an already fragile region.
To a scientist, behaviour that appears erratic may stem from deep uncertainty. The Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, was a carefully calibrated mechanism much like a climate model: dependent on stable boundary conditions. By withdrawing in 2018 and reimposing sanctions, the US disrupted that equilibrium. Now, with talk of negotiated frameworks and threats of military escalation, the signal is lost in noise.
This is not mere political theatre. Iran's uranium enrichment has surged past weapons-grade thresholds. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirms that Tehran now holds enough fissile material for multiple warheads. The biosphere of diplomacy is collapsing, and we are running out of buffer capacity. Each flip flop accelerates the feedback loop: sanctions cause retaliation, retaliation provokes aggression, aggression invites further confusion.
What the UK Foreign Office is asking for is a coherent theory of change. In energy systems, we use the term 'hysteresis' to describe a system that does not return to its original state after a disturbance. The Trump administration's strategy, if it can be called that, is hysteresis embodied. It applies extreme pressure, then relaxes, then tightens again. But Iran's nuclear programme does not snap back. The enrichment centrifuges keep spinning.
Allied coordination is not just diplomatic preference; it is a thermodynamic necessity. Without a unified signal, the system will continue to drift toward uncontrollable states. The UK, along with France and Germany, has maintained the JCPOA's framework as a backbone. But the United States must decide: is it applying force to reshape Iran's behaviour, or is it simply reacting?
As a climate correspondent, I see parallels to our global emissions trajectory. We knew in the 1990s what needed to be done. We signed treaties, set targets, and then backtracked. Today, we face the accumulated heat. Iran will not wait for a consistent US policy. The centrifuges do not pause for political indecision.
The Foreign Office's call is a plea for stability in a system that has none. Whether the next administration maintains course or veers again will determine if the region tips into outright conflict. The science of international relations, like climate science, shows that tipping points are real and irreversible. The time for flip flopping is over.
