Trump’s Deal-Making Faces Major Test; Regime Change in Iran Unfeasible
The American magazine National Interest opened its report by recounting the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June 2025-the largest direct military confrontation between these long-standing Middle eastern foes. The conflict drew in US military intervention, which targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with bunker-busting bombs. Despite former President Donald Trump’s claim of having “completely destroyed” Iran’s enrichment capabilities and the ceasefire announced on June 24,the nuclear threat remains unresolved.the looming danger continues to risk destabilizing regional security, disrupting energy markets, driving up oil prices, and undermining global energy stability.
The US Defense Intelligence agency suggests that centrifuges at the three sites may have remained intact beneath rubble. Simultaneously occurring, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported it cannot locate 410 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent-a material likely moved before hostilities began.Given this persistent nuclear risk-which initially provoked Israeli strikes-returning to prolonged war appears plausible. Consequently, an choice agreement has become increasingly urgent.
Regime Change Remains Unlikely
A new round of intensified conflict would impose heavy costs on all involved parties without any guaranteed military victory. National Interest emphasizes that discussions about regime change in Iran-whether through foreign intervention or internal uprising-are not realistic at this time.
An Unintended Future Conflict
The United States’ close ties with israel and Gulf Arab states-as well as its broader interests in stabilizing global energy prices-make Washington’s avoidance of involvement during another outbreak improbable. Yet growing domestic opposition against a prolonged or even limited military engagement makes sustained intervention increasingly unattractive.
Negotiations and Mediators’ Role
The magazine argues that a negotiated settlement essentially depends on US involvement.The UK, France, and Germany might reinvigorate UN sanctions via the ”snapback” mechanism to pressure Tehran into negotiations and compliance with IAEA inspections. However, Gulf states such as Oman, Qatar, and Saudi arabia-which have previously played crucial roles facilitating dialogue between Tehran and Washington-are unlikely to achieve meaningful breakthroughs now.
Direct talks remain off the table for Tehran after violations of Iranian sovereignty from recent US strikes on its nuclear sites; thus mediation has become critical at this stage. While Europeans together with Gulf intermediaries may lack sufficient leverage alone over Iran’s leadership, their mediation coudl open pathways toward indirect negotiations with Washington-especially if Trump signals willingness for dialogue again. China and Russia will be key actors whose support is vital for any new accord.
Trump Returns to Square One
With high risks of war still defining current conditions around Iran-and diplomatic efforts lacking momentum without US backing-the options available seem once again aligned towards negotiation strategies aimed at a deal with Tehran. Although challenging ahead paths appear narrow; strategic considerations from both countries point toward renewed engagement prospects.
Mediating talks through European or Gulf intermediaries must factor Chinese-Russian interests alongside limiting unilateral israeli actions-it arguably represents Trump’s toughest test in brokering peace deals yet.
Beyond diplomacy itself lies a higher stake for Washington: preventing turmoil in energy markets while maintaining stable global oil prices plays a central role within any lasting agreement.
Given that over 30 percent of world oil production originates from the Middle East region alone,beyond regional politics lie immense global energy security concerns arising from potential renewed conflicts there.
