In recent months, the United States has markedly showcased its military power by deploying and reinforcing its forces across the region—an approach primarily intended to project a stark binary choice: “submission or war.”
Tehran – IranView24
Citing WANA News Agency, field realities suggest that such a scale and configuration of forces is not sustainable over the long term and must ultimately yield tangible results—either Iran’s retreat from its strategic positions or the onset of military conflict. From this perspective, a withdrawal of U.S. forces without achieving either outcome would be perceived as a costly political setback for Donald Trump.
Under a war scenario, Washington would face a heavy and high-risk plan carrying at least four major challenges and consequences across operational, intelligence, and political dimensions. Implementing such a plan would require positive assessments and a green light from U.S. intelligence agencies.
These considerations have led the United States to initially favor negotiations—an avenue that could either secure Iran’s capitulation without a single shot being fired or, if talks fail, provide the time and cover needed to address and manage the challenges of a potential war under the guise of political dialogue.
Three Approaches on the Negotiation Track
Within the negotiation option, at least three distinct proposals are currently on the table:
1. The U.S.–Israeli Plan:
Under this framework, the opposing side demands the handover of Iran’s 60 percent enriched uranium stockpile, the implementation of immediate and comprehensive inspections of nuclear facilities, and the reduction of enrichment levels to zero.
These demands are coupled with requirements related to Iran’s missile capabilities, including limits on range and quantity, as well as the cessation of Iran’s support for regional resistance groups. Some unofficial U.S. messages suggest these issues are presented as preconditions, based on the argument that, in the event of war, all such capabilities could be targeted. Alongside these demands, pressure on Iran’s internal dynamics is also evident. The plan is reinforced by sustained pressure through force deployments and a form of operational-psychological encirclement.
2. The Mediators’ Plan:
This approach is built around a limited, phased nuclear-economic deal, complemented by the issuance of a form of non-aggression pact and the receipt of verbal or written assurances on missile and regional issues. The primary objective is to contain tensions and prevent the parties from sliding into an uncontrollable cycle of escalation.
3. Iran’s Plan:
The Islamic Republic of Iran has entered negotiations with the aim of closing off avenues for internal and external pretexts while simultaneously completing its strategic preparations. This participation does not negate pragmatism: Tehran seeks both to avert a devastating war and to secure sanctions relief, notwithstanding domestic criticism of this approach.
Iran’s official position is that negotiations must remain strictly within the nuclear framework. In exchange for three specific steps—diluting 60 percent enriched uranium, determining the fate of 20 percent stockpiles, and outlining the future of the nuclear file through mechanisms such as a consortium—Iran expects three corresponding concessions.
Tehran insists on preserving its right to enrich uranium on its own soil and simultaneously calls for a reduction in the atmosphere of threat and hostility in the region. In this context, understanding and managing Trump’s personal traits and political calculations is also viewed as a tool to keep open a face-saving exit for Washington.
Israel’s Considerations
Meanwhile, the Israeli regime faces two serious tactical concerns.
First, the possibility of an agreement based on any framework other than “total surrender,” prompting Benjamin Netanyahu to once again press for the full implementation of that scenario.
Second, if negotiations collapse and move toward war, there is concern that Trump might opt for a limited and controlled strike rather than a full-scale assault. Accordingly, Tel Aviv is seeking to manage and resolve the operational challenges of all-out war to enable its preferred scenario. Failing that, a “Plan B”—entailing intensified encirclement of Iran, escalation of hybrid warfare, and increased pressure on resistance groups—would be pursued, whether under an agreement or in its absence.
Ultimately, along the negotiation path, Iran’s preferred outcome is an agreement grounded in its own proposal, followed by acceptance of the mediators’ framework, while any surrender-based plan is deemed unacceptable. In a war scenario, Tehran’s priority would be managing the battlefield across all plausible contingencies; should those conditions not be met, preparedness for the worst-case scenario would be placed squarely on the agenda.
