A nuclear-armed Iran remains a potent threat, shaping the Middle East’s precarious security landscape. Israel’s uncompromising stance, coupled with Trump’s volatile rhetoric, frames the current nuclear negotiations. Can a deal satisfy Israel’s demands, while remaining acceptable to Iran?

Israel insists: “A bad deal is worse than no deal.”They demand complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, mirroring Libya’s 2003 precedent. This precedent, however, is a high bar. In 2003, Libya, under international pressure, agreed to abandon its nascent nuclear program, allowing intrusive inspections and dismantling its relevant infrastructure. This occurred in a vastly different geopolitical context, with Libya facing severe sanctions and isolation. Iran, a regional power, views its program as vital for deterrence and national pride.

Trump’s threats of military intervention add fuel to the fire. His “willingness” to use force, if negotiations fail, risks hardening Iran’s position. This approach, while intended to pressure, could trigger unintended consequences.

Israel demands clear US articulation of a deal’s shape. They seek guarantees against Iran’s nuclear weapon acquisition, not just temporary delays. This involves rigorous verification, strict enforcement, and automatic triggers for sanctions or military action. They also push for a comprehensive agreement, addressing ballistic missiles and regional destabilization.

What can be expected? At best, a fragile truce. A deal mirroring Libya’s is unlikely. Iran’s strategic depth and regional influence preclude complete surrender. A compromise, with stricter enrichment limits, enhanced monitoring, and potential concessions on missiles, is more probable.

What if Iran rejects this? Israel’s response involves diplomatic pressure, covert operations, and potential preemptive strikes. Israel’s security doctrine prioritizes preemptive action against existential threats. This could mean targeted attacks on Iranian nuclear and missile sites.

The US faces intense Israeli pressure for military support. Trump’s “leading the pack” stance suggests a willingness to act. This, however, risks a regional conflagration. A military confrontation with Iran would destabilize the Middle East, with unpredictable consequences.

Israel’s definition of a “good deal” is total nuclear program elimination. They question Iran’s sincerity, even with concessions. They argue Trump’s past deal withdrawal demonstrates the fragility of any agreement. Therefore they seek absolute guarantees, not temporary assurances.

The delicate balance between diplomacy and force is precarious. Israel’s hardline position, coupled with Trump’s threats, risks pushing Iran into a corner. A nuanced approach is vital. It must address Israel’s security needs while acknowledging Iran’s national interests.

The international community, especially the US, must facilitate this. A punitive deal is unsustainable. An agreement ignoring Israel’s concerns is equally flawed. The atomic precipice demands careful navigation.

The Libya precedent, while cited by Israel, is not a direct parallel. Libya was far less powerful and isolated. Iran is a regional power with significant influence. Therefore, any deal must reflect this reality, acknowledging Iran’s strategic importance and its need for regional security. This fact is vital to consider, as even with a deal, the region still is unstable.

The crucible of nuclear ambition forges a dangerous dance between Israel and Iran, with the US holding the volatile reins.  This isn’t a negotiation; it’s a high-wire act over a geopolitical abyss. The echoes of Libya offer no solace, only the stark reality of Iran’s ascendant power. A miscalculation, a single thread snapped, and the region descends into a furnace where Israel’s survival and Iran’s dominance are tested in the flames. 

By Bethelhem Fikru,Researcher,Horn Review