Nothing has changed in substance, although more than a month has passed. No viable option exists to resolve the Iranian issue: no surgical strike could shift the balance, no Venezuelan-style scenario seems plausible, no diplomatic deal that addresses all aspects of the problem, and no regime change can occur at a manageable cost.
Officially, negotiations continue, yet they appear to serve more as a way for both sides to buy time than to reach a real agreement. The gap remains too wide, unless the deal focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue.
On this point, both Washington and Tehran are showing some flexibility. Washington is accepting that Iran will not fully relinquish its right to enrich uranium, while Tehran is acknowledging it can no longer do so as freely as before, even in a very limited capacity.
Last June, the U.S. strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan sites reshaped the situation, though Iran still retains 400 kilograms of enriched uranium.
In the short and medium term, the Islamic Republic has no prospect of becoming a nuclear power. Even Ali Khamenei appears to accept this, which naturally eases negotiations on the issue.
Resolving the crisis through a strong nuclear deal therefore seems the most reasonable option. It is not only the most realistic approach, but it also has the backing of most regional countries — Turkey, Qatar, and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia.
Yet it would represent very bad news for both the Iranian people and the Middle East. The regime would gain strength without obtaining any real concessions in return, since the nuclear issue is already largely resolved.
If sanctions were lifted, the regime could recover and bolster its missile program and support for foreign militias. The deal would effectively provide an unexpected lifeline to a regime that has just massacred its own population.
For internal reasons, to save face, and to satisfy regional partners, could Donald Trump accept such a deal? The U.S. president continues to favor the diplomatic route, yet he seems trapped: the buildup of the fleet off Iran’s coast does not bend the regime, nor does it allow for the kind of effective, limited strike he prefers.
At the same time, while a second aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, is heading to the Gulf, it is likely not just to secure a nuclear-only agreement. Likewise, Trump’s three-hour meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu last week was almost certainly not to discuss the details of such a deal. The U.S. press is already outlining two scenarios: either a multi-week U.S. military operation or an Israeli operation backed by the United States.
It is clear that widespread chaos or a regional war remain the worst options. It is equally clear that objectives must stay realistic — targeting militias and missiles — and that no scenario will free the Iranian people from a deeply entrenched regime, no matter how extremely fragile it is, through airstrikes alone.
Yet between an Iraqi-style regime change and a flawed deal that would empower the regime, there are countless possibilities.
This article originally appeared in French on L'Orient-Le Jour and was translated by Joelle El Khoury.
Humanitarian convoy reaches Rmeish, Ain Ibl, Dibil despite obstacles