US-Iran talks: Are strikes inevitable?

To many observers of the Middle East, it has felt like it is only a matter of time before the United States bombs Iran again.

Ever since the anti-regime protests began around the turn of the year, US President Donald Trump has been threatening military action against Iran. At first, it was about the protests: Trump said the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go” if the Islamic Republic killed peaceful protesters. Those protests ended in mid-January, following a brutal crackdown that left thousandsdead. Although Trump never hit Iran, his warnings continued. He reverted to a familiar refrain: end your nuclear program, he told Tehran, or face strikes.

Amid the war of words – Iran has repeatedly pledged to retaliate – there has been a buildup of US military assets in the region, including an aircraft carrier and three guided missile destroyers. More could be on the way soon.

Trump also discussed potential Iran strikes with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on Wednesday – Israel is the top Middle East foe of Tehran and wants to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The US leader said they hadn’t made a “definitive” agreement on what to do next, but that he would prefer to make a deal with Iran – the struggling country would obtain some sanctions relief in return for caps on its military capabilities. US and Iranian officials even met in Oman last week, with each side expressing some optimism.

Yet several obstacles to a deal persist. Tehran has openly refused to meet the conditions that Washington has set, which now extend beyond Iran’s nuclear program. They include limits on its ballistic missiles, an end to uranium enrichment, and a halt to funding for Tehran’s proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

So now Washington is at a crossroads: does it scale back its demands or go ahead with strikes?

To learn what may happen next – and what potential military action could look like – GZERO spoke with Eurasia Group’s Iran expert Greg Brew, who sees only a narrow path to a deal. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

GZERO: What are the US options for strikes against Iran?

Brew: The US has a lot of options. It could strike Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile and production facilities, reducing the threat posed to Israel and regional states. It could target the remnants of the nuclear program, including the stockpile of enriched uranium buried at the sites struck in June. It could go further and attempt to destabilize the regime by striking at internal security forces. Finally, it could attempt a “Venezuela-style” decapitation and remove Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in the hope that a new regime would be more pliable to US demands.

If they did remove the supreme leader, what would happen in Iran?

Khamenei’s death would be a shock to the political system in Iran. It would enrage the regime’s hardline base, while potentially giving hope to the millions of Iranians who oppose the regime. Overall, however, it may not change much – at least not at first. The rest of the leadership would manage a transition to a new supreme leader, and much of the Islamic Republic would probably continue to function as it has done for years. In the medium-term, however, Khamenei’s disappearance would trigger changes within the system, as the military and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps assume more power over decision-making while the clerics – including Khamenei’s replacement – take a back seat.

If they make a deal, would it differ from one Barack Obama signed with Iran in 2015?

The pathway to a deal is a narrow one. It would likely focus just on the nuclear issue, despite the fact that the US wants Iran to make concessions on its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and regional proxies. It wouldn’t look too much like the Obama-era nuclear deal, as the US isn't likely to offer Iran sweeping sanctions relief, at least not at first. Iran, similarly, won't offer too many concessions. If the two sides do strike a deal, it will probably be a limited arrangement to reduce escalatory pressure. Tougher negotiations would lie ahead.