Trump's push for 'real end' to Iran-Israel conflict faces significant obstacles

The National

5 hours ago

Deal or no deal? On his flight leaving the G7 summit in Canada on Monday, US President Donald Trump said he wanted something 'better than a ceasefire' between Israel and Iran. He said he wanted 'an end, a real end, not a ceasefire' and a 'complete give-up' by Tehran.
A day earlier, he promised that peace between Israel and Iran would come 'soon'. "Many calls and meetings now taking place,' he wrote on his Truth Social site.
But peace appears distant. If anything, the war that began on Friday has intensified. Israel scaled up its attacks on Monday, targeting Iran's broadcasting authority. Iran's ninth wave of missiles strikes sent Israeli civilians back into shelters early on Tuesday.
Iranian officials have reported 224 deaths so far, mostly civilians, in the most intense exchange of fire in decades of Israel-Iran enmity. Israel said 24 of its civilians had been killed.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attacks on military and nuclear facilities were to stop Iran from creating an atomic weapon. But they were launched while Iran was still negotiating with the US on a deal to contain its nuclear programme. The White House is reportedly discussing a possible meeting this week between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, according to the Axios news website.
Iran, which has limited capability to strike Israel, has reportedly asked Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to press Mr Trump to rein in Mr Netanyahu and bring about an immediate ceasefire in exchange for flexibility on nuclear talks.
Yet despite low appetite for war in the region, any diplomatic path faces obstacles, analysts say. The first challenge: containing any push for regime change, for which Israel is showing a growing interest. The second: crafting a deal that lets Iran save face while convincing Israel that Tehran's nuclear ambitions are completely eradicated.
Task for Trump
Karin von Hippel, a former US State Department official and former director of Rusi, the London-based defence think tank, said this is a task tailor-made for Mr Trump.
'Trump is one of the few people who has any sway over Netanyahu. Not many do,' she said. 'And, thankfully, Trump has a lot of crazy views – and he's done a lot of crazy things – but one thing he's not is a warmonger.'
The US has shown little interest in engaging indirect confrontation with Iran. For Mr Trump, the escalation serves as a negotiation tactic, putting pressure on Iran into capitulating and giving up all uranium enrichment.
Tehran has insisted it must retain the right to enrich uranium under any deal, to serve civilian purposes. Capitulating on this point might mean a damaging loss of credibility.
'I think Trump would be very happy to return to the negotiating table. Putting military pressure on Iran so that they sign the agreement is, in his view, part of his deal-making,' Ms von Hippel said.
She believes any future deal is likely to resemble the 2015 agreement negotiated under president Barack Obama, which allowed only low-level uranium enrichment suitable for civilian nuclear energy production. Mr Trump pulled the US out of the agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever negotiated'.
'He'll put his own mark on it … whatever deal they come up with, Mr Trump can claim ownership over it,' Ms von Hippel said.
It remains unclear what guarantees Israel would deem acceptable, given that Mr Netanyahu opposed the 2015 agreement and is seemingly against any deal that would prevent him from destroying Iran's nuclear programme.
Some analysts say it is because Israel does not want a deal at all – but rather the collapse of the Iranian regime.
'Yes, Bibi [Mr Netanyahu] wants regime change,' said Danny Citrinowicz, senior researcher in the Iran programme at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Israel.
Reports that Mr Trump recently vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, support this view.
'Israel claims that it wants a 'good agreement' that will lead to Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions, but its recent moves show that Israel may have greater ambitions,' Mr Citrinowicz said. 'First and foremost, to convince the American administration to enter the campaign, destroy the enrichment facility at Fordow and, most importantly, undermine the foundations of the regime.'
Crushing the enemy
For Karim El Mufti, professor of international relations at Sciences Po university in Paris, Israel is not interested in the diplomatic path. 'There is no longer a logic of containment from Israel, rather a drive to completely crush the enemy, especially in the absence of international pressure,' he said.
'Israel is in 'full-in' mode, it's going after Mr Khamenei, pushing the Iranians to rethink their entire system and dismantle the Axis of Resistance,' he said, referring to the Iran-led alliance of armed groups that includes Hamas in Gaza, Lebanon's Hezbollah – once Iran's most formidable asset, now weakened after 14 months of conflict with Israel – Yemen's Houthi rebels and Iraqi militias.
'For Israel, it's now or never, they're going for the head of the snake after dismantling the proxies.'
Naysan Rafati, senior Iran analyst at Crisis Group, agrees the current situation does not favour a diplomatic outcome, especially because Israel has the upper hand.
'Two things would have to happen for that to lead to a diplomatic outcome between Washington and Tehran, neither of which is assured at this time,' he said.
First, Iran would have to make concessions that satisfy the US. The next sticking point, he said, is whether Israel can be convinced to halt its strikes, given its upper hand, and depending on how much it believes it has achieved towards its objectives of destroying Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities.
'The momentum towards escalation appears to outweigh efforts towards an immediate diplomatic resolution,' Mr Rafati said.
For Ms von Hippel, however, it is not too late. 'In every war, there is always a chance for diplomacy,' she said.
'The problem is, when conflicts drag on, grievances multiply and calls for accountability become much harder to navigate. There may not be much time left,' she said.