I Don’t See A Deal

All I see these days is talk of a deal between the US and Iran not only impending but all but a done deal. It is a daily use of videos titled to make us think peace is on the horizon. Pardon me, but while I get sucked in for a second or two there is also a big but to these claims. Iran will stall and stall and never, I repeat never turn over their enriched uranium willingly if at all. They will consider any deal a victory and will only serve to setup the next attacks on Israel and anyone in the West. The only way to end the conflict with Iran is to eliminate them completely. Totally. Remove them from any vestige of power. I fail to understand anyone who thinks diplomacy will work. I support US President Trump, but my advice to him and his team to end the façade of negotiations and unload on Iran from stem to stern. Crush them and their leaders and allow the Iranian people choose their next leadership. That’s my view. And one thing that constantly perplexes me and that is why Trump doesn’t use the massive military power there now. It’s a waste of American’s money every second he doesn’t do that and end the current Iranian regime. And I’m not the only who sees any deal with Iran’s current leaders as a bad one and a mistake.

No Good Deal

According to an article from the Gatestone Institute no agreement with Iran will bring true peace:

Once again, the US appears prepared to negotiate another agreement with Iran in the hope of limiting Tehran's nuclear ambitions and reducing tensions in the Middle East. The negotiations are a dangerous illusion, based on the false assumption that compromise, sanctions relief, and engagement are the only path to regional stability. There can be no "good" deal with a jihadist regime that openly sponsors terrorism across the Middle East, brutalizes its own people, calls for the destruction of Israel, and continues to chant "Death to America."

One of Trump’s own cabinet agrees:

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum this week called Iran's current Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leaders "terrorists with an oil field."

Any agreement will only be seen as a victory by these Ayatollahs:

An agreement will not moderate them. It will embolden them. The Iranian regime and its terror proxies – Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis in Yemen – will interpret any deal as a victory over the US and the West. They will see it as proof that terrorism, missile attacks, hostage-taking, nuclear blackmail, and claiming control of the Strait of Hormuz forced Western powers into concessions.

Recent history backs this up:

This is exactly what happened when the Obama administration signed the 2015 "nuclear deal," the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The deal provided Tehran with sanctions relief and access to billions of dollars while merely delaying -- not totally dismantling -- its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Iranian regime never changed its behavior. There was never any need to. Instead, the regime expanded its ballistic missile program, increased support for terrorist organizations, intensified regional aggression, and steadily advanced its nuclear capabilities. Iran's mullahs repeatedly violated restrictions while exploiting loopholes and enforcement mechanisms that were pitifully weak. Why should anyone believe that this time will be different?

Diplomacy Is A Weapon

At least in the eyes of these Iranians. I do think Trump knows this, but for some reason he tolerates talks brokered by Pakistan who has Iranian planes in their country. Why, I have no idea. The article breaks down how Iran looks at the talks:

The Iranian regime does not view negotiations the way Western democracies do. Tehran sees diplomacy as a tactical weapon: a means to buy time, get intrusive foreign governments off their back, weaken international opposition, divide Western allies, and secure economic relief -- all while continuing its long-term strategic objectives as fast as the circumstances after President Donald J. Trump's term in office will allow.

At their core they hate the US and Israel:

For the Islamist rulers in Tehran, hostility toward the US and Israel is not rhetoric. It is a core pillar of the regime's ideology and identity -- its entire reason for being.

And any deal only makes them stronger if my reading of the offer on the table now:

Any agreement that eases sanctions will inject billions of dollars into Iran's economy. That money will not improve the lives of ordinary Iranians suffering under corruption, repression, and economic mismanagement. It will only strengthen the IRGC, finance terrorism, and fuel new wars across the Middle East. The Iranian regime continues supplying its proxies with weapons and political backing. More money for Tehran means more drones and rockets for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more weapons and training for Hamas, and more drones and ballistic missiles for the Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis have already demonstrated their ability to threaten vital international shipping lanes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, with repeated attacks on commercial vessels and disruptions to global maritime trade.

Loosening sanctions and and giving access to frozen assets only makes things worse:

Any agreement that enriches the Iranian regime will jeopardize global energy security by leaving critical oil chokepoints vulnerable to state-sponsored sabotage wherever countries will end freedom of navigation. Endless negotiations with the Iranian regime -- particularly until the US midterm elections in November to make sure that oil prices stay high and voters stay "madder" -- consume enormous American diplomatic energy and strategic attention that are urgently needed elsewhere. Washington risks becoming trapped once again in a cycle of talks, temporary understandings, violations, and renewed crises with a regime that has consistently acted in bad faith.

Playing The Waiting Game – Again

I’ve said it before but any deal that lets the Ayatollahs in power after Trump leaves office is bad:

Even if any new agreement does not contain sunset clauses allowing the Iranian regime eventually to resume advanced uranium enrichment activities legally after restrictions expire, the Iranian regime will view a "deal" as a green light quietly to continue rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Such provisions do not eliminate the nuclear threat; they postpone them. Already, Iran has reportedly already restarted much of its ballistic missile production and "could restore significant portions of its offensive drone capabilities within months." Every concession made to Tehran weakens America's credibility and emboldens those seeking to undermine Western interests.

And getting other Arab countries to come together to enforce any deal is questionable at best:

Against this backdrop, Trump's demand that Arab and Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan, join the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel raises additional questions about Washington's strategy in the Middle East. Expanding peace agreements between Israel and Arab and Muslim countries is unquestionably a positive goal. Peace and normalization are in the interests of Arabs and Muslims no less than Israelis. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that cooperation with Israel promotes regional stability, security, economic growth, and technological advancement. Genuine peace, however, may not be able to be imposed through pressure or threats. Peace made at gunpoint rarely lasts. Arabs and Muslims might choose peace with Israel because they recognize that coexistence and regional cooperation serve their own national interests, not because they are being publicly pressured by the US president.

These countries are still Muslim-led for the most part and leading by strength won’t be seen in such a strategy:

In addition, by linking the Abraham Accords to the conflict with Iran, Trump risks creating the impression that normalization is being used to compensate for the failure to topple the Iranian regime or halt its nuclear ambitions. It almost appears as if the Trump administration understands that any forthcoming agreement with Tehran will be viewed by many in the Middle East as a weak and dangerous concession, and is therefore searching for a diplomatic achievement elsewhere to offset criticism.

And their current response is speaking volumes:

Significantly, the response from the Arab and Muslim world to Trump's latest demand has been largely unenthusiastic. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have shown no public eagerness to comply, while Pakistan flatly rejected the idea. This silence and rejection underscore a larger reality: meaningful peace agreements cannot be manufactured for public relations purposes or used to obscure strategic failures elsewhere. The consequences of a deal with Tehran could extend far beyond Israel and the Middle East. Worse, many of the supposedly neutral Middle Eastern countries "facilitating" the deal -- Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- have well-worn records of not being even slightly neutral.

Not Friends With Israel

If one looks at these nations recent actions, Trump is asking for support from strong haters of Israel:

Within hours of Hamas's October 7, 2023 invasion of Israel, Pakistan's Defense Minister Khwaja Asif announced that "all Muslim countries should fight united against Israel" and that we "are standing by Iran in every way." Turkey's antagonism toward Israel after October 7, 2023, has only hardened. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has openly been calling for Israel's destruction. Saudi Arabia earlier this month refused to grant the United States the use of Prince Sultan Airbase as well as flyover rights for Project Freedom. Qatar, with its state-owned Al Jazeera media empire that promotes the Muslim Brotherhood, is, along with Turkey, a long-time supporter of Hamas. In October 2023, then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly asked Qatar to "tone down the volume on Al Jazeera's coverage because it is so full of anti-Israel incitement." Qatar's school textbooks "remain rife with antisemitic content" according to both a 2024 US State Department report and a 2025 ISGAP report. Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have interests in making sure that Iran's regime survives.

Many Signs Of A Bad Deal

Iran is playing the US like a fiddle in these talks and the article lists the reasons why:

First, a "deal," prevents further Iranian missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which is why the Iranian regime attacked its neighbors in the first place: to pressure Trump into stopping US military operations and instead persuade him to make a deal. Second, all four countries might well prefer to have Iran ruled by a weakened regime to seeing Israel's stature in the Middle East strengthened. Third, if the IRGC "terrorists with an oil field" remain ruling Iran, it makes it easier for all of these countries -- after Trump leaves office -- to resume trying to annihilate Israel. And if they deployed soldiers as part of an "International Stabilization Force" in Gaza, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan would be positioned militarily, right on Israel's doorstep. Apart from Turkey, these countries have never even recognized that Israel even exists.

The problem is easy to see:

Unfortunately, the Iranian regime, although its top layers of leadership have been eliminated, has not changed. The "terrorists with an oil field" will emerge from a future agreement economically stronger, politically legitimized, and closer than ever to an eventual nuclear breakout capability.

Any deal needs to be good for both the US and Israel:

For Israel, the consequences are especially grave. Any agreement that leaves intact the current Iranian regime -- one that has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction and repeatedly violates its own signed commitments, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- cannot be trusted.

Any agreement that strengthens the Iranian regime financially and politically also strengthens its network of terrorist organizations that surround Israel on multiple fronts: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria.

Every second the US and Israel don’t attack Iran and its proxies means they will rebuild their strength just like Iran did after the June 2025 US attacks:

The missile and drone capabilities that Iran is actively rebuilding already enable its proxies to attack Israel with increasingly sophisticated precision weapons. Every sanctions-relief package and every diplomatic concession accelerate this process. Every day of negotiations sees Iran's capabilities rapidly being restored.

Sending The Wrong Message

Any deal is a bad one no matter how good the spin is:

The consequences would extend far beyond Israel and the Middle East. At the same time, a "deal" would send a message that defiance and blackmail eventually produce rewards and economic benefits. Equally disturbing is the moral message such an agreement would send. The Iranian regime is one of the world's leading violators of human rights. It brutally suppresses dissent, jails journalists and political opponents, persecutes women and minorities, and executes critics. Rewarding such a regime with sanctions relief and international legitimacy would normalize repression and signal that systematic human rights abuses carry no meaningful consequences. Finally, a deal with Tehran would undermine American deterrence worldwide. America's enemies would see negotiations and concessions not as diplomacy, but as weakness.

Not having nuclear weapons is stop gap measure because of the people who would have them:

The fundamental problem is not only Iran's nuclear program, but also the nature of the regime itself. This is a revolutionary Islamist regime committed to exporting jihad (holy war), destroying Israel, undermining pro-Western governments, and threatening American interests throughout the Middle East. No "deal" can change that reality.

The article backpedals a little, though:

The only realistic strategy is one based on sustained maximum pressure -- including kinetic action if necessary -- diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and decisive measures aimed at dismantling Iran's nuclear and ballistic programs permanently. Anything less will simply postpone the next crisis while making the Iranian regime richer, stronger, and more dangerous.

Maximum pressure that overthrows the Mullahs is the best option in my opinion.