The False Binary: Why Critics Are Misreading the US-Iran Deal
By Daniel Rosen
Discourse surrounding the recent US-Iran agreement has fallen into a perplexing binary trap. Critics across the political spectrum view the deal through a flawed lens, recognizing only two possible outcomes: a total, unconditional capitulation by Tehran or an unmitigated American failure.
In reality, this agreement is the equivalent of hitting a bases-clearing triple. Short of total regime change, supporters of the deal argue that little more could have been accomplished at this stage. Others believe that conditions such as lifting sanctions on Iranian oil (which has already happened) and other provisions put Iran in a better place than it was before the war.
At this point in the war, the only realistic choices were to cease military action without an agreement, to keep military action going to force a better agreement, or to cease the war now with the agreement we currently see. Ultimately, definitions of victory, deals, and peace depend entirely on who you ask. Because this story is still unfolding, final judgment should be reserved until the full picture is revealed.
Many people are disappointed in the deal, but ignoring the monumental history made this past year regarding Iran, Israel, and the US is both unfair and inaccurate. Achieving the objective of real change in Iran will simply take a few more steps. The US has been in Israel’s corner during the last few years, and the benefit of the doubt has been earned.
The Iranian regime will never publicly concede defeat — regardless of facts on the ground. We saw this exact playbook with Hamas, Hezbollah, and again when Iran declared victory after last year’s 12-Day War. Rather than falling for the Islamic Republic’s definitions, the US and Israel must rely on rational, objective definitions of victory.
If victory requires the instant and total destruction of the enemy, it becomes an unachievable goal. In reality, the US government has secured a tactical pause which allows for the Strait of Hormuz to open and the pressures on the world energy market to ease. This framework provides the essential foundation for the next — and final — phase of neutralizing the threat from Iran.
The kinetic phase of this war is drawing to a close, and it is time for Israel to pivot. The strategy moving forward requires doubling and tripling down on the “quiet war” — covert operations, cyber warfare, and intelligence measures designed to foster and support regime change from within Iran itself.
Simultaneously, Israel must confront a parallel battlefield that has been neglected: the war for global public opinion. Israel must actively repair its international standing and learn to fight a modern war for hearts and minds on an ever-changing diplomatic battlefield.
This deal is a pragmatic action taken by a US administration that has been a true friend to Israel and the Jewish people. Israel and her supporters should consider treating this agreement as a stepping stone instead of a final destination.
Daniel M. Rosen is the President and Co-founder of IMPACT a 501c3 dedicated to organizing, empowering and mobilizing individuals to combat Jew hatred on social media and beyond. Their activities have been reported upon on NBC, CBS, FOX, The Times of Israel, JNS, and other outlets. Follow us at @joinimpactnow
There is no alternative than to consider a regime change. This should happen with a coalition of counties, not just expecting America to do it alone. The people of Iran want a new regime and would be willing to fight if they had weapons.