Any agreement signed today is a deferred check for tomorrow's war. Even if President Donald Trump delivers the perfect deal on paper, the price preserving the ayatollah regime and injecting it with economic oxygen will turn any future confrontation into a nightmare beyond imagination.
As Trump returns to the White House and talk of a "big deal" in the Middle East returns to the table, the temptation is enormous. After all, on paper it sounds ideal: a resolute US president compelling Tehran to capitulate.
Imagine it. Iran commits to dismantling its nuclear program, halts funding for its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, and even dismantles its ballistic missile array. On the surface, it would appear to be a messianic vision realized. But this very optimistic scenario is the most perilous of all. It is the optical illusion that could lead us to catastrophe or, in more historically precise terms, the Munich Agreement of our generation.
To understand why, one must look beyond the technical clauses of any accord to the price Iran would receive in return. There is no diplomatic agreement without compensation, and in the world of realpolitik the compensation Tehran would demand and receive would be twofold: regime survival and sanctions relief. That is the root of the problem.
Assume Trump achieves the ideal deal. Iran signs. In exchange, the Iranian economy, currently on the brink of collapse, receives an immediate transfusion. Sanctions are lifted, oil flows freely to global markets and foreign investment returns to Tehran. Iran once again becomes a legitimate regional economic power. The regime, now wobbling under intense internal and external pressure, receives a life insurance policy. It stabilizes, enriches itself and, most importantly, buys time.
Time is the critical commodity here. An American president's term is limited. The political clock in Washington has a clear expiration date less than three years of real effectiveness before the next campaign cycle begins.
By contrast, the clock of a revolutionary religious regime has no hands. The ayatollahs play a long game.
They will sign the paper, smile for the cameras, store the centrifuges in warehouses and use every incoming dollar to entrench their rule at home and prepare the infrastructure for the future.
What happens the moment Trump leaves the Oval Office? What happens when American pressure eases, as it invariably does in Western democracies weary of prolonged confrontation? The answer is clear and painful: Iran will tear the agreement to shreds. It is not a question of if, but when. Only this time, in the next round, we will not face a battered, isolated and impoverished state. We will confront a wealthy power with overflowing coffers, a stable regime enjoying international legitimacy and doubled motivation to destroy Israel.
Signing an agreement now would mean postponing the inevitable while magnifying the risk. The quiet achieved for the next three or four years would be deceptive. We would be purchasing short term calm at the cost of a total war in the medium term.
A war with Iran after it has economically recovered and militarily strengthened under the cover of Western money would be far more difficult, bloodier and more destructive than anything we know today.
The conclusion must therefore be sharp and unequivocal, even if it is unpopular in diplomatic studios: there must be no agreement with Iran. Even a deal that appears to be an Iranian capitulation would in fact be an Iranian victory, because it guarantees the regime's survival. As long as that regime exists, its aspiration to destroy Israel remains intact.
History judged Neville Chamberlain harshly for waving a piece of paper and promising "peace for our time" while enabling the Nazi monster to grow stronger.
The only option is continued pressure, continued isolation and continued denial of legitimacy until the threat collapses, not until a meaningless piece of paper is signed.
