Peace for Our Time – Again? The Dangerous Illusion of a Deal With Iran

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”
— Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana

It has now been close to a month since protests erupted in Iran. At the time, U.S. President Donald J. Trump reportedly said he would come to their rescue. “Help is on its way,” he said on January 13, 2026. As of the time of writing, February 1, no help is on its way. In fact, the U.S. president has radically changed tact. He now appears “open for business” with Iran and seeks a deal under which Iran would scrap its nuclear program, alongside its missile and proxy networks.

U.S. warships are arriving in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf by the day. Even the port of Eilat has seen the relatively rare occurrence of a U.S. destroyer docking at its port. The U.S. president has threatened a response far worse than Midnight Hammer, when the United States bombed the Fordow nuclear facility with bunker busters during Israel’s Operation Rising Lion in June 2025, should Iran refuse to agree to his terms. The Iranians, in turn, are “negotiating” with the Americans, while simultaneously issuing threats of open war should any strike occur. So far, those of us in Israel are stuck in the middle of a dangerously escalating precipice, with war liable to break out at any moment.

However, Trump has yet to strike Iran, puzzling even many right-wing commentators. Some suggest he is under immense pressure, particularly from Gulf and Saudi allies, not to attack Iran. These countries would almost certainly be targeted should Iran decide to launch ballistic missiles at American interests in the region. Israel appears to be one of the few countries supporting a more aggressive course and may even join an American attack if one were ordered. Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, with the damage accruing as time passes.

Those of us in Israel wake up every day in a state of suspense and go to sleep somewhat relieved. Yet as days turn into weeks, with America merely threatening and not acting, we face the possibility that the Ayatollah regime will outflank the Americans in negotiations, cutting a “bad” deal that keeps Washington quiet while Iran quietly continues developing its nuclear and missile capabilities. In such a scenario, the main loser is Israel, which would likely be the first target once Iran acquires such capabilities. It remains unclear whether Trump would respond decisively if Israel alone were struck, potentially removing the Americans from the equation altogether.

If Trump is delaying in order to buy time, then his moves may be clever. He may be positioning his pieces on the board while slowing Iran through the guise of negotiations. Perhaps he could land a deal he can call acceptable, such as a renewed Iranian nuclear agreement. However, the likelihood that Iran would agree to relinquish its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and proxy networks is extremely low. It is akin to asking the United States to give up its Constitution or democratic system under threat of force. Such an outcome is implausible.

At best, Iran would only need to outlast Trump, who has three years left in office, before gradually abandoning any agreement. Pacta sunt servanda and international law more broadly will hold little sway over a regime that ransacked the U.S. embassy following the Islamist takeover in 1979. Iran is negotiating now only because Trump’s threats are perceived as real and because negotiations buy time.

This raises the question: could Trump play the role of Chamberlain and craft a deal securing “peace for our time – version 2”? In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and others sacrificed Czechoslovakia at the Munich Conference to satisfy the territorial ambitions of Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler, in exchange for promises of peace. The agreement failed. Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, unleashing the Second World War.

Iran’s Islamist regime is no different in this respect. Its goals remain unchanged regardless of any strongman deal with the United States: the elimination of Israel, the erosion of U.S. power, the global spread of Islam, and the creation of conditions for the arrival of their “Hidden Mahdi” – a vision that most likely entails global war. No agreement with Iran’s ayatollahs will curb this ideology.

Another key constraint is who would enforce and preserve any such agreement? Without inspectors on the ground, and without the active cooperation of the Islamist regime, any agreement imposing curbs would be worth little more than the paper it is written on. If the United States were required to compel Iran to accept inspectors through force, a renewed form of “21st century gunboat diplomacy,” such enforcement would only be credible if the threat of force were both explicit and demonstrably usable.

So far, aside from the actions taken in June 2025, the growing armada appears more a show of presence than a genuine enforcement mechanism. This dynamic allows Iran to play for time, exploiting negotiations without facing meaningful consequences, That is, unless force is actually employed, and then one would ask: Why negotiate a flawed agreement if it is meant to be breached or near impossible to enforce without war?

We are witnessing history unfolding. An agreement with Iran risks becoming the Chamberlain agreement of our generation, a betrayal of the Persian people who had placed their hopes in American intervention. It will not satisfy the ideological drive of Tehran’s leadership, and the “Art of the Deal” cannot succeed against a regime whose ideology supersedes international law and contractual restraint.

In my view, war is inevitable; the only question is whether it comes now or later. A deal may restrict Israel’s freedom of action while paving the way for a future Iranian strike far worse than October 7, at a moment when American attention is elsewhere or sympathy has waned.

For everyone’s sake, I hope President Trump makes the right decision. One cannot negotiate and yield peace with an ideological religious dictatorship.