Week Two of the Iran Crisis: Diplomatic offramp is narrowing but not closed (yet)
As we approach Day 10 of the Israel-Iran crisis, the focus is on whether diplomacy can succeed and, if not, whether President Donald Trump will make the decision to use US military force to destroy what's left of Iran's nuclear infrastructure — particularly the deeply buried enrichment facility known as Fordow.
The situation as of Saturday, two days after President Trump gave two weeks to test diplomacy, appeared to have reached a steady state. This includes Israel's control of Iranian skies and striking targets at will, as well as Iran still being able to launch missile barrages albeit in smaller numbers at Israel. Militarily, this equation ultimately favors Israel, whose position is likely strengthening further this week.
But that is a tactical equation and does not lead to a clear strategic endgame, particularly with respect to Iran's nuclear program. So where is this crisis headed? I see four possible scenarios:
This remains the preferred outcome. But after this week's talks in Geneva between Iran and European allies, it's not trending well. Those talks went nowhere. Iran held to its positions from before the crisis. The US was not present. And the entire backdrop — the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva, where the JCPOA was negotiated ten years ago — was reminiscent of another era.
There may be more direct engagements ongoing with United States and Iran (likely through Qataris and Omanis) but short of that, the diplomatic track has no real traction. This is unfortunate, as it's the best way to end the crisis — and all Iran needs to do is signal to Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, that it is prepared to agree to the proposal he presented to Iran about six weeks ago.
That proposal is reportedly a balanced one, resulting in Iran giving up its enrichment program but over time and as part of an international consortium to supply nuclear fuel for a peaceful and monitored civilian-nuclear program.
Iran's refusal to engage directly on this proposal both before the crisis and especially now may be a fatal and fateful mistake. If there is one off-ramp available, it's this one.
The US is continuing to position military assets in the Middle East and will soon have three Carrier Strike Groups in the theater. This is a massive show of force, and has not been seen since 2012, notably at another point of stalled diplomacy with Iran on its nuclear program and with Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to American sanctions.
Trump has clearly given the order to position and prepare for a strike. That can help reinforce the diplomacy as Iran must know at the end of the two-week deadline, the United States is prepared to use force to render Fordow inoperable, and Iran has no chance of defending against such an operation. The more the United States appears to be gearing up for such an operation, the more likely Iran might be ready in the end to make a deal the US can accept.
As Anderson Cooper and I discussed shortly after Trump declared a two-week timeframe, 'diplomacy with a deadline' can be effective and the buildup of military forces serves the dual purpose of reinforcing the diplomatic track while also preparing for a strike should diplomacy fail. At the end of this period, Iran must understand that it will not have enrichment facilities – currently, ten cascades of highly advanced centrifuges – at Fordow.
That can be archived diplomatically (preferred) or militarily.
While Trump has ordered the positioning for a strike, it's unclear whether he might in the end order one.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday that Israel may have ways to take out Fordow without the United States. That might look like 'Operation Many Ways,' which I've discussed this past week on AC360. Operation Many Ways was an Israeli commando raid last September against a deeply buried Iranian missile facility in Syria.
The facility was nearly the same depth as Fordow and naming the operation 'Many Ways' was a signal to Iran that Israel has just that when it comes to destroying deeply buried facilities.
Related video
Watch: CNN investigates Israel's strikes on key Iranian officials — and their civilian toll
I'm doubtful as to the feasibility of such an operation in Iran, however. It's high risk and a vast distance. A nuclear enrichment site is also far different from a missile facility. But no doubt the Israelis are looking at all options here and they don't want to complete the military campaign with the Fordow facility intact. So if the Americans stay on the sidelines, expect the Israelis to try something on their own on Fordow.
In the wake of either of 2 or 3 above, I believe Israel could declare the end of major operations. Iran would respond, but from an Israeli and US perspective there would be an endpoint once Fordow is dismantled together with the other main nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, which are already damaged.
Short of the three options laid out above, the most likely course is the crisis simply goes on. That would mean Israel continues to control Iran's airspace. It continues to strike targets. Iran continues to muster barrages at times, but its missile stockpile (and launchers will deplete).
This scenario is an inconclusive end with Iran still having massive enrichment capabilities but Israel hovering over Iran to ensure they're never used, as fledgling diplomacy continues in the background.
My Assessment: I think at this stage we're most likely to see either option 2 or option 4 even while continuing to do all we can to push for option 1 — the diplomatic resolution.
So, given that the preferred endgame is diplomacy, yet with talks going nowhere, how might diplomacy be invigorated over the coming week?
First, the United States should make clear the two-week deadline is real and that if Iran refuses to engage constructively, then a strike will be the inevitable result of Iran's own poor choices. That deadline together with a credible offer to Iran — which has been on the table since before the crisis — remains the best possible chance for a diplomatic offramp.
Second, is a more creative possibility. Sometimes in a crisis, you want to enlarge the problem set, and here – that means Gaza. The Gaza conflict is ongoing in the background of the Iran crisis. There is now a deal on the table backed by Israel for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza in exchange for Hamas releasing half the living hostages (10 of 20). Hamas has rejected that deal, but it did so before Israel's attack into Iran and the removal of many of its Iranian backers, such as the leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
In my experience with Hamas, it can be far more flexible when its allies have suffered defeats, as happened with the Gaza ceasefire deal earlier this year following Israel's defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and a subsequent ceasefire deal in Lebanon.
Thus, one idea might be the 60-day ceasefire in Gaza together with a 60-day freeze on enrichment in Iran with an aim to find more permanent solutions at the end of this two-month period. Israel is in such a position of strength it might be amenable to this and the U.S. could help broker it as a means for defusing the broader Middle East crises and in a manner that does not allow Iran or Hamas to regroup.
After all, the fastest way to end the horror in Gaza is for Hamas to release just ten hostages, and the fastest way to end the crisis with Iran is for Iran to accept the deal that Witkoff proposed earlier this year. There may be merit in trying these together, particularly as both Iran and Hamas are in their weakest state in years.
At bottom, President Trump has bought some time and space with his 'two-week' deadline, together with a preference for a diplomatic resolution. But now three days into that two-week period, there appears to be little momentum on the diplomatic track even as U.S. forces continue their massive buildup in the region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Israeli strikes on Iran cap dramatic shift in Mideast strategic balance
JERUSALEM — While the world braces for President Donald Trump's decision on bombing Iran and the tectonic waves that could follow, here in the Middle East, the earthquake has already struck. Israel's go-for-broke attacks on Iran launched just over a week ago — after decades of intense but largely covert conflict between the two powers — have dramatically shifted the strategic balance in a way that will probably prevail whether American bombers enter the fray or not, according to analysts in Israel, across the region and beyond.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tulsi Gabbard Flips Sides in MAGA Civil War Over Iran's Nuclear Capabilities
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has flipped her stance on Iran after President Donald Trump nuked her intelligence as 'wrong.' Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 25 that there was no intelligence to suggest Iran was building nuclear weapons, though the country had enriched its uranium to higher levels. Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's June 12 'preemptive' strike on Iran—which he justified by saying that the country has a 'secret plan' to weaponize uranium—Trump sided with Israel's countervailing position. On two separate occasions this week, Trump rebuffed Gabbard's earlier assessment of Iran's nuclear program. 'I don't care what [Gabbard] said,' Trump said aboard Air Force One. 'I think they were very close to having one.' In another comment on Wednesday, the president added that Iran was 'a few weeks' away from turning their uranium into a weapon, echoing similar sentiments shared by Netanyahu. Then on Friday, Gabbard fell in line with Trump, attacking the media for having the gall to believe what she said. 'The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division,' Gabbard wrote to her 600K followers. 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly.' She added, 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Gabbard included a clip of what she called her 'full testimony,' which has since racked up 8.9 million views. The world has been thrown into a state of limbo while Trump weighs a decision on whether to get the United States involved in strikes on Iran, a decision the country warned would be 'very dangerous.' In a statement read on Thursday by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump said he would make his decision 'within the next two weeks' based on the fact that there 'is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Reuters reported that the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with a group of European diplomats in Geneva on Friday for nuclear talks.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top economist who previously sounded the alarm on tariffs sees a possible scenario where Trump ‘outsmarted all of us'
Torsten Sløk, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, laid out a potential scenario where President Donald Trump's tariffs are extended long enough to ease economic uncertainty while also providing a significant bump to federal revenue. That comes as the 90-day pause on Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs' is nearing an end. Businesses and consumers remain in limbo over what will happen next with President Donald Trump's tariffs, but a top economist sees a way to leave them in place and still deliver a 'victory for the world.' In a note on Saturday titled 'Has Trump Outsmarted Everyone on Tariffs?', Apollo Global Management Chief Economist Torsten Sløk laid out a scenario that keeps tariffs well below Trump's most aggressive rates long enough to ease uncertainty and avoid the economic harm that comes with it. 'Maybe the strategy is to maintain 30% tariffs on China and 10% tariffs on all other countries and then give all countries 12 months to lower non-tariff barriers and open up their economies to trade,' he speculated. That comes as the 90-day pause on Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs,' which triggered a massive selloff on global markets in April, is nearing an end early next month. The temporary reprieve was meant to give the U.S. and its trade partners time to negotiate deals. But aside from an agreement with the U.K. and another short-term deal with China to step back from prohibitively high tariffs, few others have been announced. Meanwhile, negotiations are ongoing with other top trading partners. Trump administration officials have been saying for weeks that the U.S. is close to reaching deals. On Saturday, Sløk said extending the deadline one year would give other countries and U.S. businesses more time to adjust to a 'new world with permanently higher tariffs.' An extension would also immediately reduce uncertainty, giving a boost to business planning, employment, and financial markets. 'This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers,' he added. 'Trade partners will be happy with only 10% tariffs and US tax revenue will go up. Maybe the administration has outsmarted all of us.' Sløk's speculation is notable as he previously sounded the alarm on Trump's tariffs. In April, he warned tariffs have the potential to trigger a recession by this summer. Also in April, before the U.S. and China reached a deal to temporarily halt triple-digit tariffs, he said the trade war between the two countries would pummel American small businesses. More certainty on tariffs would give the Federal Reserve a clearer view on inflation as well. For now, most policymakers are in wait-and-see mode, as tariffs are expected to have stagflationary effects. But a split has emerged. Fed Governor Christopher Waller said Friday that economic data could justify lower interest rates as early as next month, expecting only a one-off impact from tariffs. But San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly also said Friday a rate cut in the fall looks more appropriate, rather than a cut in July. Still, Sløk isn't alone in wondering whether Trump's tariffs may not be as harmful to the economy and financial markets as feared. Chris Harvey, Wells Fargo Securities' head of equity strategy, expects tariffs to settle in the 10%-12% range, low enough to have a minimal impact, and sees the S&P 500 soaring to 7,007, making him Wall Street's biggest bull. He added that it's still necessary to make progress on trade and reach deals with big economies like India, Japan and the EU. That way, markets can focus on next year, rather near-term tariff impacts. 'Then you can start to extrapolate out,' he told CNBC last month. 'Then the market starts looking through things. They start looking through any sort of economic slowdown or weakness, and then we start looking to '26 not at '25.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
