“What should we do about Iran?” That’s one of the most frequent questions these days. I’m hearing it from all sides, as Iran continues its drive to build nuclear weapons, at the same time talking to American negotiators about a new accord.

I don’t have a good answer to that question. That’s because I had a good answer 10 years ago, and I don’t have a better one today.

If the 2015 US-Europe-Iran nuclear deal had been kept, we would be reaching the end of the 10-year period when some of the sanctions and limits on Iran would expire. We would know, one way or the other, whether Iran would be moving toward a diplomatic solution to its many unacceptable practices—or not.

Now we’ll never know. In 2018, after taking office for the first time, US President Donald Trump canceled the accord.

In 2015, I began writing a series of articles analyzing the Iran nuclear deal and its aftermath. But first, I took a step that is all too rare in today’s hurry-up, beat-the-competition reality of journalism: I read the accord, beginning to end.

US PRESIDENT Donald Trump in the Oval Office last Friday: Since Trump’s election as president last November for a second term, the US has no longer been committed to the previous world order in which it had played such a major role in creating and running, the writer maintains. (credit: Nathan Howard/Reuters)
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump in the Oval Office last Friday: Since Trump’s election as president last November for a second term, the US has no longer been committed to the previous world order in which it had played such a major role in creating and running, the writer maintains. (credit: Nathan Howard/Reuters)
Some of my findings:
  • The 2015 Iran nuclear agreement was the most stringent, harsh accord I’d ever read not involving a nation that had been utterly defeated in war.
  • The 10-year “sunset” provision, which cancels some of the limitations, was seen as the accord’s Achilles’ heel. As we’ve seen, 10 years is an eternity in the Middle East, and anything is possible, like the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Muslim nations.
  • Trump’s own administration certified that Iran was keeping the terms of the accord.
  • “Worst deal ever,” as Trump called it? Any “deal” is by definition less than one side’s maximum demands. This one was, if anything, closer than could have been expected to the Western guidelines.
  • The way to proceed should have been to use the accord as a starting point for another round of negotiations and build on it, covering areas not part of the accord, such as Iran’s missiles and its terrorist activities.
  • Would anything positive have emerged from using the deal as a starting point? It’s impossible to say. It’s too easy to declare that, since the accord was canceled, Iran has shown its true colors by expanding its terror involvement and resuming its nuclear development in the direction of a bomb.
Too easy because, realistically, if you invested years in negotiations, absorbing harsh sanctions and limits, just to see the whole thing abruptly canceled, would you even consider negotiating another deal, and with the same guy who canceled the first one?

Today's Iran

That brings us to today. Trump is said to be considering a new deal that would leave Iran’s nuclear program intact and might not even include its terror activities or its missiles. It’s hard to tell with Trump—he changes his tune faster than the DJ on your favorite radio station.

So why is Iran engaging with the US? Probably to buy time to continue its nuclear development program, get out from under sanctions, and rebuild its proxy terror network destroyed by Israel over the past year and a half.

But before anyone says, “Of course, they were never serious about the talks in the first place, and that’s what they do,” take a look at that list again. Trump’s own administration certified that Iran was keeping the accord right up to the day he canceled it.

Which is the real Iran? We’ll never know. If Iran were ever amenable to a deal that would stop its nuclear program in exchange for a seat at the table and regular relations with the world, it isn’t amenable now, after its concessions a decade ago led to an accord that was torn up.

So what should we do now? The most common answer is that Israel should take advantage of the opportunity of a weak Iran, bereft of its air defenses and terrorist proxies, and bomb the daylights out of Iran’s nuclear program.

That’s wrong on several levels.

First, Iran is not exclusively an Israeli problem. Iran threatens the moderate Arab world directly and the Western world less directly. Israel is the canary in the coal mine, no more than the first target of Iranian aggression, as a sign of what can happen to the rest of the Western world.

More practically, there is no justification for asking Israel to handle the Iranian assault on its own—and absorb the inevitable counterattack, which would likely make the 181 Iranian missiles and drones launched at Israel in October 2024 look like a little fireworks display.

Let’s put it this way. Years ago, I mocked up a cover for my “third book,” just as a joke. On the cover is a photo of me, forefinger raised high, and the title is: “No One Listens to Me!”

But it’s no joke. I already wrote about what should have happened with Iran, and it didn’t end up happening. The only realistic alternative now is for the US to lead an attack on Iran, with all the death, destruction, and unpredictable regional fallout.

That’s what happens when you assume the worst outcome and adopt it as a self-fulfilling prophecy, like canceling an accord that might have worked.

Correspondent Mark Lavie has been covering the Middle East since 1972. His second book, “Why Are We Still Afraid?” recaps his career and comes to a surprising conclusion.