In the wake of admissions that the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran will pass the June 30 deadline, the Associated Press (AP) published an analysis today that explored a number of possibilities world powers could pursue should the talks fail.

The analysis judges that a military response is unlikely, but that American sanctions against Iran could possibly be stiffened in the absence of a deal.

That leaves stiffer sanctions as the only realistic way to pressure Tehran economically. But even that could be a tough sell outside the U.S. The Iranian people who would suffer are largely captive, and some countries, like China, India and Japan, still depend on diminished but still significant exports of Iranian oil. …

The U.S. has had sanctions against Iran in place ever since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and has tightened them several times in the years to include Tehran’s crucial oil and banking sectors. There would be little to stop politicians in Washington from imposing even tougher measures on Tehran should talks break down and hopes for a deal fall through.

However, the AP points out that the United Nations and European Union would be less likely to enforce stricter sanctions, especially since “sanctions discipline is already loosening as companies world-wide anticipate returning to the lucrative and underdeveloped Iranian market.”

With no ongoing diplomacy Iran would be likely to begin enriching uranium without constraints.

With no talks constraining Iran, it is likely to resume enriching uranium, which Tehran froze early last year under the preliminary deal that led to the present negotiation. Iran says that program is only for peaceful purposes, but enriched uranium can also form the fissile core of a nuclear warhead. If Iran opts to return to enriching at levels just a technical step away from weapons-grade, it could have enough fissile material for one bomb within months. This is the “breakout point” the deal is trying to extend to at least a year.

Even if Iran wouldn’t be able to produce a nuclear weapon, the fear that it could soon produce one would likely spur nuclear proliferation across the Middle East among Sunni states in the region.

In a parallel analysis, Michael Singh, the managing director of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, laid out three possibilities in The Wall Street Journal today.

It is, of course, possible that no deal will be reached. In that case, the options include both sides walking away from the talks and repudiating the limits imposed by the Joint Plan of Action; formally extending the November 2013 Joint Plan, perhaps in modified form to reflect developments of the last six months; or refraining from renewing the Joint Plan while continuing to adhere to its limits.

Singh doesn’t believe the first two possibilities are likely, and doubt that a third extension of the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) is likely. However, he sees a possibility where the JPOA is informally extended.

All this means that the best course of action for the U.S. and its European allies would be to present Iran with a take-it-or-leave-it offer, walk away without committing to renew negotiations, and continue unilaterally adhering to the Joint Plan’s limits, as long as the Iranians do likewise. At the same time, Washington should visibly prepare its backup options–new and resumed sanctions or even a military strike–in coordination with allies to convey to Tehran that the status quo can only deteriorate, not improve, should its intransigence continue.

[Photo: ali javid / YouTube ]