Diplomacy, not Netanyahu, should guide Trump on Iran

The region could be days, maybe even hours, from a major conflagration — the biggest since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The third round of critical US-Iran indirect talks in Geneva on Thursday has been described as a last-ditch chance to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and other issues. But despite all the warning signs that war may be imminent, there are indications that a diplomatic breakthrough is still possible.

The reality is that, despite the mixed signals and serious rhetoric from President Donald Trump and his close aides, no one in the region has the appetite for yet another war — one that could last weeks or even months and have catastrophic consequences. No one, that is, except Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

The region has been on edge for weeks, since the US amassed a large naval flotilla in the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean and moved more than 150 military aircraft to bases in the region. This is a markedly different situation from last June’s 12-day confrontation between the US and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran on the other.

The irony is that a deal is possible — one that spares the region an open-ended war, provides guarantees that Iran’s nuclear program will be monitored and that uranium enrichment will be severely curtailed. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a deal is “within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority.” That is the key to defusing the crisis.

Regime change risks dragging the region into an uncertain and lengthy confrontation with fallout extending far beyond Iran

Osama Al-Sharif

Trump’s State of the Union address this week left observers guessing. He accused Iran of working to acquire nuclear weapons and developing long-range ballistic missiles that threaten Europe and could reach the US. But he also said his preference remains a diplomatic solution.

The massive deployment of US military assets in the region is baffling, as it could indicate that one of the White House’s objectives is regime change. Analysts have warned that such an option risks dragging the region into an uncertain and lengthy confrontation with fallout extending far beyond Iran. Only Israel stands to benefit from the resulting chaos.

There are significant legal, political and military constraints that could limit Trump’s ability to wage an extended war. Unlike last June’s targeted strikes, a full-scale assault seeking to decapitate the Iranian regime would require congressional approval. Iran has not declared war on the US and has provided assurances that it has no intention to develop nuclear weapons. It has hinted it would be willing to reduce enrichment activities to symbolic levels.

A protracted assault would also deplete Washington’s critical supply of missiles and munitions, according to US military analysts. Meanwhile, Iran has reportedly acquired advanced Russian and Chinese radar and antimissile defense systems, making it far riskier for US and Israeli aircraft to operate as they did last June.

Trump should be wary of Netanyahu’s efforts to shift US objectives from securing a deal to pursuing regime change

Osama Al-Sharif

According to reports in The Wall Street Journal, Iran has not attempted to retrieve any of the highly enriched uranium believed to be buried under the rubble of its bombed-out facilities and its uranium enrichment program has not been reactivated. That leaves the ballistic missile program — which Tehran regards as both deterrence and a sovereign right — as the remaining sticking point. This issue, believed to have been pushed by Netanyahu, could prove a deal-breaker. Israel has already attacked Iran and Tehran responded by firing hundreds of long-range missiles into Israel.

America’s allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have already declared they will not allow their airspace to be used by either party in a military confrontation. Iran has threatened to target US bases, Israel and American naval assets in the Arabian Sea.

Arab countries, the EU and others have called for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis. Araghchi has hinted that Iran’s proposal — delivered to the Americans through Oman — contains significant trade incentives. For a sanctions-battered Iran, any deal must include the lifting of US and international sanctions, widely seen as the primary driver of the mass protests that erupted across the country last month.

Trump has prided himself on ending wars and avoiding starting new ones. He should be wary of Netanyahu’s efforts to shift US objectives from securing a deal to pursuing regime change. The Islamic Republic has a troubled, controversial history with its neighbors, but addressing those concerns requires diplomacy. The 2023 China-mediated normalization between Riyadh and Tehran demonstrated that dialogue is possible. Iran is not Venezuela and a major US-Israeli attack would trigger a chain reaction that could engulf the entire region.

Voices within the Trump administration and Congress are pushing for regime change. Their dangerous rhetoric must not drive Trump’s decision. If diplomacy is his preferred option, then it must be given the space to work.

Trump is now in a position to reach a new deal with Iran — one that replaces the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that he withdrew from in 2018. He can claim he has negotiated a better deal: one with no time limit, a stronger monitoring structure and firmer commitments from Tehran. He can also claim credit for an unprecedented trade agreement with the Islamic Republic. That is a legacy worth pursuing — and far preferable to the ruin of an open-ended war whose outcome no one can predict.

• Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. X: @plato010