A mega-deal to end the war

Much attention has focused on how the current war with Iran began — not so well argued, not necessarily so legal. But the real question is how it ends.

Although President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do not inspire much confidence about their intentions, there is an achievable blueprint for an outcome that could leave the world a far better place.

Unless the conflict produces a strategic outcome that actually solves the underlying problem, it will merely be remembered as another costly episode in the long and destabilizing history of Middle Eastern chaos.

And there is a whopper of an underlying problem here. For decades, Iran has built a system designed to spread revolution across the Middle East while maintaining a theocratic police state at home. It pursued nuclear capabilities, developed increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles, and armed a network of proxy militias from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen. This has kept the region on tenterhooks and occasionally in flames. Without Iran, there would probably have been no Oct. 7.

The Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal attempted to constrain Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for economic relief, but it did little to address the broader architecture of missiles, militias and revolutionary ideology. Trump walked away from that deal in 2018 — a foolish move which, coupled with no other effective measures, enabled Iran to resume enrichment.

The result is the situation today: a confrontation that many observers fear could spiral into an ever-wider war, but that also presents a rare opportunity to permanently dismantle the threat Iran’s regime poses to the region and to its own people.

That objective should be uncompromising: Iran must permanently abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, dismantle its long-range missile program and end the financing and arming of militias across the region.

The goal should not be Iran’s humiliation or destruction as a nation. The Islamic Republic may even survive in some form. What should not survive is the system that allows it to continue causing such harm.

A settlement that includes carrots should therefore also require an end to clerical vetting of presidential candidates and a restoration of genuine authority to Iran’s elected institutions, above all the presidency and parliament.

This need not mean total regime overhaul, such as the immediate abolition of the office of supreme leader. In fact, when Ali Khamenei was elevated in 1989, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani helped shape a constitutional order that strengthened the presidency which he then assumed. He appears to have imagined a system in which elected institutions would wield the main governing power while the supreme leader would stand more as a symbolic or balancing figure.

That is not how things ultimately evolved — Khamenei instead became one of modern history’s most diabolical despots. But the precedent shows that a more republican version of the system would not be completely alien to Iran’s own political history.

These reforms should be part of a package presented by the broadest possible international coalition. And it should be paired with a powerful set of incentives. It should be a “deal” — the kind of thing Trump appreciates. In exchange for Iran’s acquiescence, the world should offer something transformative and generous.

All sanctions should be lifted. Iran should be welcomed into regional trade arrangements with Gulf economies and possibly others. The country should have full access to global markets, capital and technology.

Diplomatic relations should normalize. Formal peace treaties, if Iran wishes, would be on offer.

More controversially, the leadership of the current regime should be offered a form of political amnesty, allowed to keep their wealth and step aside without fear of international prosecution. In authoritarian systems, that kind of “golden bridge” has often been the only way to facilitate meaningful change.

Such an approach may seem generous toward a regime responsible for decades of repression at home and violence abroad. But the objective of strategy is not justice or moral satisfaction — it is a better future and an end to violence.

There is an appetite for change. Freedom House ranks Iran among the most politically restrictive states in the world, comparable to countries like North Korea and Syria in the bottom tier of the index. Its GDP per capita is only about $4,000 to $6,000, far below most of its Gulf neighbors, about one-tenth of Israel’s, and well below the global average. Living standards have been heavily eroded by persistent economic instability. Inflation has regularly hovered in the range of 30 to 50 percent in recent years — among the highest in the world.

But under better circumstances, Iran’s vast oil and natural gas reserves — among the largest in the world — could attract large-scale investment and joint energy projects with Gulf partners. Current trade between Iran and Gulf states is roughly $25 billion annually, much of it indirect or routed through intermediaries. Under open conditions, that could plausibly double or triple.

For the Iranian people, the improvement would be spectacular. One path leads to continued isolation, economic stagnation and endless confrontation with the outside world. The other leads to reintegration into the global economy and the possibility of normal political and economic life after decades of revolutionary isolation. The protests that have shaken Iran in recent years suggest that many citizens are already keenly aware of that choice.

Would the remnants of the regime agree? Few would predict it, but with almost their entire leadership gone, the skies controlled by enemies, their navy sunk, their people despising them, they are not in the strongest bargaining position. More violence may be needed to convince them, but an offer should be made.

For the U.S. and its allies, the logic is equally clear. If the war fails to produce such a transformation, it will only have reinforced the cycle of hostility that has defined relations with Iran for 47 years. Israel has also seen its standing badly undermined not only in Europe but also in U.S. public opinion. It must shift back toward a paradigm of peace.

Indeed, a peace treaty between Israel and a new Iran would be an excellent goal to strive for. It is a vision for the future, to be sure — but if the international community plays its cards right, that future could be years away rather than decades. Trump has a chance to do something truly great.

Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe-Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books.