Tehran, badly bruised by the 12-day war with Israel, is now patching itself up. Satellite images have captured the presence of a digger at Fordow, the nuclear site hit by an American strike. Meanwhile, Iran has established a new defence council, tasked with enhancing the country’s military readiness. And due to the war itself, Iranian nationalism is surging. All this illustrates a fundamental truth: force alone cannot dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, nor effect regime change.
Yet the ceasefire, for now, is holding. And that means that a rare window of opportunity remains open — an opportunity for transformative diplomacy. After all, the devastating US-Israeli attacks and the retaliatory Iranian missile barrages showed both the power and the limitations of military action. There was no clear winner. But as the fog of that war recedes, a bigger prize could be on offer. If stability in the Middle East is truly the objective, the United States must seize this moment to broker a comprehensive diplomatic settlement with Iran.
To do so, it will need to recognise that the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has shifted fundamentally. Ever since the 1979 revolution, dialogue between Washington and Tehran has been impeded by myths, biases, and outdated frameworks. Whether or not the West has noticed, though, the chances of rapprochement are becoming more favourable.
Within Iran, the culture has gradually transitioned from ideological fervour to pragmatic nationalism. Decades of economic sanctions and international isolation, combined with generational shifts among Iran’s youth and elites, have tempered the regime’s revolutionary zeal and increased the strategic emphasis on national interests. The Persian civilisation, with its rich historical continuity, has reasserted itself, taming the isolationist and confrontational impulses that marked Iran as a pariah state in the late 20th century.
More broadly, the Great Transition — that is, the end of a period of history marked by unchallenged American global dominance — has redirected American priorities and given the middle powers a better hand in negotiations. Despite taking serious damage from Israeli and US bombing during the 12-day war, Iran remains a civilisational state with a population of 90 million, regional reach, and historical longevity, marking it a resilient middle power. In that brief conflict, Iran launched strikes of its own, overwhelming Israeli and US defences. The much-touted and expensive US THAAD and Israeli Arrow air defense system together shot down only 201 of Iran’s 574 ballistic missiles, depleting around a quarter of US global stockpiles in twelve days and costing US taxpayers $ 2 billion.
Those missiles will take years to replenish. It is another inconvenience of a conflict that distracts from America’s foremost strategic priority: competing with China. From the prism of national interest, the Middle East is no longer a priority for Washington. Successive US administrations — from Obama to Trump via Biden — have sought to reduce American military commitments in West Asia, reflecting a structural shift in US strategic priorities towards East Asia and China. This strategic retrenchment necessitates a sustainable regional balance. And this balance can be achieved not by isolating and excluding Iran, but by incorporating Tehran as a focal point of a new West Asian security order. Already, Iran has embraced its erstwhile rivals in the Persian Gulf, attempting, with the help of Saudi Arabia, to contain the rise of an expansionist, neo-Ottoman Turkey led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Traditional alliances, in other words, are in a state of flux due to changing regional and global dynamics.
Such geopolitical circumstances recall the diplomatic opportunities seized by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Then, rapprochement with China fundamentally altered the global order, setting in motion a series of events that culminated in the end of the Cold War. President Trump, facing a similar historical juncture, now has the unique chance to reset and mend relations with Iran after 46 years of hostility, potentially reshaping the region’s security architecture for decades to come. It is already the case, as I have argued, that structural changes, and shared interests, have made improved US-Iran relations more likely. But proactive American diplomacy could accelerate this trajectory, allowing Trump to secure a significant legacy for himself: not just international recognition, but even the Nobel Peace Prize he so covets.
Nonetheless, considerable obstacles remain. Chief among them is Israel’s staunch opposition to US normalisation with Iran. Note the timing of Israel’s surprise attack against Iran: 13 June, two days before a pivotal round of talks between Washington and Tehran, which analysts expected could result in a major breakthrough. While Tehran’s revolutionary ideological fervour has waned, Israel under Prime Minister Netanyahu has increasingly mirrored zealotry of the early Islamic Republic.
The Netanyahu government has adopted an ideological, Manichean worldview that defines security exclusively through confrontation and perpetual militarisation. This worldview has shifted Israel away from the pragmatic and defensive policies championed by past Israeli leaders such as David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin. It is a profound change. The United States’ unconditional support for Israel has been a major cause for the systematic radicalisation of Israeli society, promoting hubris, recklessness, and overreach while protecting the country from the consequences of its unrestrained behaviour. Within this strategic context, Netanyahu’s neoconservative approach — emphasising Jewish exceptionalism, religious fundamentalism, and hegemonic expansion — has produced a state perpetually at war, undermining Israel’s long-term security and diplomatic flexibility in pursuit of the quixotic dream of turning Israel into a regional hegemon.
And it is hardly the case that Netanyahu has been, in that respect, successful. Despite repeated tactical victories, Israel’s leadership has failed to convert short-term military successes into lasting peace and regional stability. Rather, the new Israeli establishment uses the spectre of war as fuel for its existential threat narratives, spun to further securitise Israeli domestic politics. In becoming akin to ancient Assyria — an imperial state perpetually at war with its neighbours and driven by militant extremism — Israel risks strategic overstretch, exhausting its resources and threatening its future viability.
The first Trump administration, motivated partly by its desire to “solve” the Middle East and finally extricate the US by bolstering Israeli power, attempted to form an anti-Iran regional bloc, via the Abraham Accords, that brought Israel together with the Sunni Arab states. Although they brought some level of diplomatic normalisation to US allies in the region, the Accords ultimately fell short of addressing the region’s structural imbalances. Iran remains an indispensable regional power, possessing civilisational continuity, a substantial population, significant indigenous technological and industrial capacity, and the resolve to assert its interests. Its exclusion from the regional order perpetuates instability, undermining American strategic objectives and increasing regional insecurity.
Recognising this, Washington must now pivot towards a diplomatic strategy that integrates Iran within a broader regional security framework. Tehran, pragmatically recognising the limits of confrontation, has indicated openness to diplomacy that respects its sovereignty, dignity, and core strategic interests. Despite their rhetorical and performative chants against Israel and Western hegemony, Iranian leaders have signalled a willingness to quietly abandon aggressive strategic postures, including dissolving the expensive and geopolitically contentious “axis of resistance” in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean — forsaking its regional allies and proxies like the Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis. In exchange, Tehran seeks political normalisation based on the full recognition of its sovereignty, including its right to domestic enrichment and conventional military capabilities, and economic reintegration with Washington and its regional allies.
“Despite their rhetorical and performative chants against Israel and Western hegemony, Iranian leaders have signalled a willingness to quietly abandon aggressive strategic postures.”
This emerging diplomatic consensus could take the form of a comprehensive Perso-Abraham Accord, ending entrenched hostility between Iran and Israel and redefining regional security through mutual recognition, diplomatic normalisation, and shared economic interests. Such an accord would significantly reduce the US military footprint in the Middle East, aligning with America’s broader strategic reorientation towards Asia. Simultaneously, it would curtail the ambitions of regional powers such as Turkey, whose neo-Ottoman expansionism has alarmed Arab states and Israel alike.
For such an accord to materialise, however, the United States must practice strategic empathy and prioritise sustained diplomatic engagement over coercion. Rather than continuing a counterproductive cycle of sanctions and intimidation, Washington could offer tangible incentives, such as American investment in Iran’s civilian nuclear technology. These incentives would be accompanied by stringent monitoring mechanisms managed through US firms and a regional consortium, whose inspections would replace those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which Iran now views with suspicion. This approach would simultaneously demonstrate US goodwill and ensure transparency in Iran’s nuclear activities, effectively addressing international proliferation concerns.
Equally critical is the role of Israel, which must acknowledge the strategic folly of perpetual confrontation and sabotage. A reset in regional relations offers Israel a unique opportunity to redefine its security through diplomacy rather than continuous militarisation. The alternative — a perpetuation of escalation cycles — not only incentivises Iran to nuclearise as a means of deterrence, but also risks embroiling the region in a broader war. It is a war that neither Washington nor Tehran desires, and one Israel itself cannot ultimately afford.
Looking at the bigger picture, the recent conflict between Israel and Iran, despite its immediate devastation, has clarified a crucial geopolitical reality: military force alone cannot secure lasting peace or dismantle Iran’s nuclear program permanently. The Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz famously wrote that “war is a continuation of politics by other means.” War is never an end in itself, but must have clear strategic objectives that advance core state interests. The Twelve-Day War, and the shaky ceasefire that has followed, have done the opposite. They have destabilised the region, pushed Iran closer into the Chinese orbit, and further entangled the United States in Middle Eastern quagmires — all while signalling to Iran that if it wants to avoid the harrowing fates of Libya and Syria, then it must try to end the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons.
A better path to regional stability lies through strategic diplomacy, respect for mutual interests, and the careful incorporation of Iran into a renewed regional security architecture. The time is ripe for such a diplomatic reset, a comprehensive agreement that could not only redefine relations between the US and Iran, but also fundamentally reshape the broader region. Donald Trump, uniquely positioned by history and circumstance, holds the key to this transformative opportunity to midwife the birth of a new Middle East. Choosing diplomacy over perpetual conflict could become the defining act of his presidency, establishing a legacy of statesmanship and peacemaking that not only resonates with his base but also reverberates far beyond his tenure in office.
