Latest news with #TehranTimes
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- Politics
- First Post
Israel-Iran conflict videos: Lebanese, Palestinians celebrate as Tehran's missiles hit Tel Aviv
Videos shared by Iranian media on X show Palestinians erupting in joy on the streets, flashing victory signs and raising slogans read more Israel's air defenses fended off many of the more than 100 missiles launched. Source: AP People in Palestine, Lebanon and Yemen rejoiced Friday (June 13) as Tel Aviv was hit by a barrage of ballistic missiles by Iran at Israel. Videos shared by Iranian media on X show Palestinians erupting in joy on the streets, making victory signs and raising slogans. Some could be seen with mobiles in their hands as they captured Iranian missiles and drones lighting up the skylines. #BREAKING Palestinians rejoice as Iran carries out retaliatory strikes against Israel. — Tehran Times (@TehranTimes79) June 13, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another video shows people in Lebanon celebrating Iranian strikes as they take part in a bike rally, with many people holding flags in their hands and chanting slogans. #BREAKING Lebanese celebrate Iran's retaliatory missile operation against Zionist regime — Tehran Times (@TehranTimes79) June 13, 2025 Earlier, US media reported that giant screens were erected in Yemen for a jubilant crowd to watch Iranian strikes on the Jewish nation. Tel Aviv hit by Iranian missiles On Friday, loud warning sirens rang across Israel as Iran launched many ballistic missiles in response to Israel's overnight airstrikes. A few hours later, Iran sent another round of missiles toward Israel. Some of these missiles got past Israel's missile defence system, causing damage and injuries, but the full scope of the destruction is still unclear. In the first attack, Iran fired around 100 missiles in two waves, according to officials. Israel's missile defence system, called the Iron Dome, stopped most of these missiles, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said. However, a few missiles hit buildings due to some failures in the defence system. In the second wave, dozens more missiles were fired, and the IDF reported that while some were stopped, others got through. Videos shared on social media, confirmed by The New York Times, showed a missile hitting an area with several military sites, including the IDF's main command centre. The footage suggests that at least one Iranian missile broke through Israel's air defences and struck an important military site in central Tel Aviv. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Israel carried out large airstrikes on Iran on Friday, targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities and aiming to eliminate key military leaders. Media reports say the surprise attack killed at least 20 senior Iranian commanders, including the leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Six nuclear scientists were also confirmed killed in the strikes.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Khamenei vows to leave Israel ‘helpless', says Iran will ‘not go for half measures'
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday condemned Israel's overnight strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and top military officials, declaring that Iran's armed forces would render Israel 'helpless' read more Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday condemned Israel's overnight strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and top military officials, declaring that Iran's armed forces would render Israel 'helpless'. 'Our Armed Forces will act powerfully and create a miserable situation for the wicked Zionist regime,' Tehran Times quoted Khamenei as saying in a televised address on Friday night. Khamenei emphasised that the Israeli actions had crossed a red line and said that Israel 'will not remain unscathed', and that Tehran 'will not go for half measures in its response'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The remarks come after Israel launched a significant military operation targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure and key military figures, an action that has escalated tensions in the region. Iran has already initiated retaliatory measures, including launching over 100 drones and missiles towards Israel, which were intercepted by Israeli defence systems. 'A short while ago, the IDF identified missiles launched from Iran toward the territory of the State of Israel,' Israel's military said in a statement, adding the public should enter protected shelters 'and remain there until further notice'. On Friday, Israel executed a large-scale military operation targeting Iran's nuclear and military facilities. The strikes, involving warplanes and drones, resulted in the deaths of several high-ranking Iranian officials, including Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, and Major General Hossein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The Israeli military confirmed the elimination of at least six senior commanders and nine nuclear scientists. Key targets included the Natanz and Fordo uranium enrichment facilities. The operation was reportedly planned over several months and aimed at halting Iran's advancing nuclear programme. The United States, while not directly involved, had been informed of the impending Israeli strikes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD President Donald Trump reiterated his warning to Iran, stating that failure to negotiate a nuclear deal would result in 'even more brutal' attacks. The international community has expressed deep concern over the escalating tensions, with calls for de-escalation and renewed diplomatic efforts to prevent further conflict. With inputs from agencies
Al Manar
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Manar
Iran Vows Decisive Response to Israeli Strikes: 'This Crime Will Be Regretted'
Following a series of pre-dawn Israeli airstrikes that targeted multiple areas across Iran—including residential neighborhoods in Tehran—and resulted in the martyrdom of senior military commanders, scientists, and civilians, the Islamic Republic has vowed a decisive and lawful response, warning that the aggression will be met with force. President Pezeshkian: Iran's Response Will Be Lawful, Decisive, and Regret-Inducing Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has condemned the Israeli enemy's airstrikes on Tehran and other cities as a 'barbaric assault' and vowed a decisive and lawful response that will leave the aggressor to regret its actions. In a message to the Iranian people following the Israeli attack, President Pezeshkian stated that 'the Islamic Republic's legitimate and powerful response will make the enemy regret its folly.' He stressed that neither the Iranian people nor the government will remain silent in the face of this 'blatant crime.' 'Our response will be lawful, strong, and measured—yet sufficient to make the aggressor understand the cost of its actions,' Pezeshkian asserted. #BREAKING Hundreds took to the streets of Isfahan to condemn the recent Israeli aggressions on Iran, demanding severe revenge. — Tehran Times (@TehranTimes79) June 13, 2025 A Criminal Act Revealing the Zionist Regime's True Nature Iran's president described the attack as a gross violation of international law and 'a clear demonstration of the criminal nature of this illegitimate entity,' adding that 'the world now sees what Iran has long warned about: that this regime is rooted in aggression and bloodshed.' While reaffirming Iran's consistent calls for peace and regional stability, Pezeshkian emphasized that Tehran is fully prepared to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity within the framework of international law. 'Iran has always shown readiness for dialogue and building trust. But any assault on our soil will be met with unwavering resolve.' President Pezeshkian concluded by urging the Iranian people to remain united and ignore misinformation spread by the enemy's psychological warfare. In an official statement, the Iranian government declared that it had immediately initiated diplomatic, legal, and defensive measures following the attack. The statement condemned the Israeli enemy's actions as evidence of its 'unrestrained criminality' and described the regime as 'a rogue actor that flouts international norms.' 'The overnight aggression by the Zionist regime proves it is a lawless entity. It assassinates openly, in broad daylight, before the eyes of the world,' the statement read. The government warned that initiating war with Iran would be 'playing with fire,' especially while diplomatic negotiations on Iran's nuclear file were ongoing. The timing of the attack, it said, revealed Israel's fear of Iran's growing global influence and ability to defend its position through diplomacy and deterrence. 'Iran's right to retaliate and defend its sovereignty is indisputable. Vengeance for our martyrs is certain. Violating Iranian territory is an unforgivable crime.' 'The world will know: we did not start this war—but how it ends will be written by Iran,' the statement concluded. Iran's Foreign Ministry also issued a strongly worded statement, holding the Israeli enemy and its main supporter, the United States, fully responsible for the consequences of what it called an act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. 'This is a clear breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and a blatant act of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran,' the ministry said. 'Under Article 51, Iran has the inherent right to self-defense and will exercise it with full strength, in a manner and time of its choosing.' The statement also underlined that such an operation could not have been conducted without US coordination or approval. 'The United States, as the principal supporter of this regime, must bear responsibility for the dangerous consequences of this reckless adventure.' In protest, Iran summoned the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, who represents US interests in the absence of formal diplomatic ties, demanding accountability for Washington's complicity in the Israeli assault. IRGC Commander: 'The Gates of Hell Will Soon Open on Criminal Entity' Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, the newly appointed commander of the IRGC, sent a message to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, pledging unwavering commitment to defend the Islamic Republic and avenge the blood of the martyrs. #BREAKING Ayatollah Khamenei appoints Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour as new IRGC Chief Commander — Tehran Times (@TehranTimes79) June 13, 2025 'This criminal act by the Zionist regime against Iran's national security and territorial integrity will not go unanswered,' Pakpour said. 'Under your wise leadership and with the courage of our armed forces, this regime will face a painful and dark destiny. With faith in God and the will to fulfill the promise of the Imam, the gates of hell will soon open on this murderous regime,' Brigadier General Pakpour concluded.
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Business
- Atlantic
Israel's Least Bad Option Is a Trump Deal With Iran
Having once described Donald Trump as Israel's 'greatest friend ever,' Benjamin Netanyahu must be watching with some consternation as the American president enthusiastically pursues a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, the Israeli prime minister made every effort to stop the Obama administration's Iran deal in 2015. Trump exited that deal in 2018, perhaps partially at Netanyahu's urging. And now Trump is pursuing a deal of his own—his administration has even dropped a number of Iran hawks from its ranks, in what one pro-Israel D.C. outlet described as a 'purge.' But Israel's leaders shouldn't fear the coming Iran deal. They may even find reasons to welcome it: Among a host of bad options for curbing Iran's nuclear program and pacifying a volatile region, a nuclear agreement between Trump and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be the least bad option for Israel too. No such deal has happened yet—and none will until the two sides can reach an accord about whether Iran should maintain a capacity to enrich uranium on its own soil. The U.S., together with Israel, has strongly objected to any such prospect. 'WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 2. The Iranians insist on it—and, for their part, are playing a game of reverse psychology: 'This Guy Has No Will for a Deal,' read a headline in the semiofficial Tehran Times on June 7, referencing Trump. But both sides have compelling reasons to want these talks to come to something. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. Steven Witkoff, the Trump administration's top negotiator, has proffered a plan that reportedly suggests outsourcing Iran's uranium enrichment to a regional consortium. The enrichment would be for civilian purposes, and the consortium would include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Qatar and Turkey. The idea is to remove the technical capacity from Iranian hands and internationalize the process. Whether this consortium would do its work on Iranian soil or elsewhere, however, is not clear. And as Richard Nephew, an American diplomat who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, told me, this is the nub of the issue—'centrifuges in Iran'—in relation to which 'a consortium is window-dressing.' Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to Iran's security establishment, told me that Iran has 'seriously studied' Washington's consortium proposal and could accept it only if at least some enrichment were to be done on Iranian soil. One option might be to use Iran's islands in the Persian Gulf for this purpose, he added. These are part of Iran but geographically close to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and therefore easier to monitor than the mainland. For Israel, the matter of where the enrichment happens is nonnegotiable. 'Israel would be willing to accept the consortium solution only if it is located outside of Iran, a condition that Iran, of course, will not accept,' Raz Zimmt, the head of the Iran program at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told me. 'This is Israel's official stance, and it enjoys near-unanimous support across the Israeli political spectrum.' The reasons for this are understandable: Iran's leaders, unlike many of their counterparts in the region, have never embraced a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead continue to clamor for the destruction of Israel. Just last month, Khamenei called Israel 'a cancerous, dangerous, and deadly tumor that must be removed from the region and it will be.' Israeli leaders are worried that a deal with Iran will not go far enough in disabling it from acting on its animus against Israel. In fact, hard-line Israelis cannot envision a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that doesn't involve the total dismantlement of its centrifuges and expatriation of its uranium. That's because the means to weaponize are already there. Even those, including Nephew, who advocate for a new deal caution that Iran's enrichment capacity has increased in the seven years since Trump left the 2015 agreement. Iran now has enough enriched uranium that if it sought to weaponize, it could build as many as 10 atomic weapons. Even if it shipped that stockpile elsewhere, the country would still have its advanced centrifuges. With these, experts say, Iran could hold on to just 5 percent of its current stockpile and still be able to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb inside of a month, and four bombs' worth in two months. Given this reality, according to Zimmt, the Israeli government believes that it is running out of time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And to this end, he told me, 'Israel clearly prefers no deal over a bad deal,' because without a deal, military strikes become thinkable. Many in Israel see such a confrontation as the best option—even though Iran's nuclear facilities are spread across its territory, and some are buried deep underground, making any military campaign likely to be drawn-out, complicated, and hazardous. The analysts I spoke with did not see much lasting good coming of such an assault. Nephew noted that the setback to Iran's nuclear program would likely be temporary and said that Israel would be 'infinitely better off with a good deal.' Gregory Brew, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, pointed out that Iran's regional proxies have been so weakened that Israel is in a particularly strong position at the moment. A negotiated settlement to the nuclear question could allow Israel to build on its advantage by pursuing closer ties to Arab states. This 'would be a win for Israeli security and the region as a whole,' Brew said. Back in 2015, the Arab states of the Gulf region were leery of a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal. They had poor relations with Iran and worried that an agreement might exclude their interests. Now those relations have softened, and most of the Gulf states are eager for an arrangement that could cool the region's tempers. Their support for diplomacy should be good news for Israel, which already has diplomatic, trade, and military ties with two Gulf countries (the UAE and Bahrain). The Saudis have conditioned normalization on Israel's allowing for a Palestinian state, but their language is pragmatic—Riyadh's overwhelming interest appears to be in economic development, which regional conflict only undermines. A nuclear deal that draws in the Gulf states would undoubtedly serve to better integrate Iran into the region's economy. Some in Israel may balk at this idea, preferring to see Iran isolated. But there is a case to be made that giving Iran a stake in regional peace and stability would do more to de-radicalize its foreign policy than caging it has done. Some in Israel remain skeptical. 'I don't believe that Saudi or Emirati participation in the deal carries any real significance,' Zimmt said. 'It's not something that would reassure Israel, certainly not before normalization with Saudi Arabia, and not even necessarily afterward.' Other Israeli critics of Trump and Witkoff chastise them for mistaking the ideologically driven actors of the Middle East for transactional pragmatists like themselves. Daniel Byman: Trump is making Netanyahu nervous But leaders and peoples—in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Damascus, Beirut—have grown tired of wars around religion and ideology, and many are ready to pursue development instead. This explains why Syria's new leaders have embraced Trump and promised not to fight Israel. Iran is not immune to this new regional mood. Iranian elites have reason to fear that the failure of talks will bring about devastating military strikes. But they also have reason to hope that the lifting of sanctions, and even a partial opening for the country's beleaguered economy, will be a boon to some of the moneyed interests close to the regime. Najafi told me that Iran already has a shared interest with Arabs in trying to avoid a confrontation between Israel and Iran: 'Arabs know that any military action by Israel against Iran could destroy their grand developmental projects in the region,' he said. I've talked with Iranian elites for years. Most of them have no interest in Islamism or any other ideology. They send their sons and daughters to study in American and Swiss universities, not to Shiite seminaries in Iraq or Lebanon. Khamenei's zealotry is very unlikely to outlive him in Iran's highest echelons of power. A diplomatic deal, however flawed, will not only curtail Iran's nuclear program but also put the country on a path defined by its economic and pragmatic interests. A more regionally integrated Iran is likely to be much less belligerent, as it will have relations with the Saudis and Emiratis to maintain. The regime will likely be forced to drop many of its revolutionary pretensions, as it already has toward Saudi Arabia: Iran once considered the kingdom illegitimate, but it now goes out of its way to maintain good ties with Riyadh. Although this might sound unthinkable today, ultimately the regime will have to drop its obsession with Israel as well, for the same pragmatic reason that Arab countries have done in the past. The alternative to a deal is an extensive military campaign—most likely, a direct war between Iran and Israel—with unpredictable consequences. The notion that such a confrontation would lead to positive political change in Iran is a fantasy. Just as likely, the regime will hunker down under duress, prolonging its hold on power. This is why even the most pro-Israel figures in the Iranian opposition, such as former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, oppose military strikes on Iran. Iran's population harbors very little hostility to Israel. A group of student activists recently tried to organize an anti-Israel rally at the University of Tehran, but only a couple of dozen people joined them, a small fraction of those who have turned out for rallies in Cairo, Amman, or New York City. But a direct war that costs Iranian civilian lives would easily change this. The future of Iran and Israel does not need to lie in hostility. That's why a deal that keeps Iran from going nuclear and avoids military strikes is the least bad option for everyone.
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Business
- Atlantic
Why Israel Should Learn to Love the Coming Iran Deal
Having once described Donald Trump as Israel's 'greatest friend ever,' Benjamin Netanyahu must be watching with some consternation as the American president enthusiastically pursues a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, the Israeli prime minister made every effort to stop the Obama administration's Iran deal in 2015. Trump exited that deal in 2018, perhaps partially at Netanyahu's urging. And now Trump is pursuing a deal of his own—his administration has even dropped a number of Iran hawks from its ranks, in what one pro-Israel D.C. outlet described as a 'purge.' But Israel's leaders shouldn't fear the coming Iran deal. They may even find reasons to welcome it: Among a host of bad options for curbing Iran's nuclear program and pacifying a volatile region, a nuclear agreement between Trump and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be the least bad option for Israel too. No such deal has happened yet—and none will until the two sides can reach an accord about whether Iran should maintain a capacity to enrich uranium on its own soil. The U.S., together with Israel, has strongly objected to any such prospect. 'WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 2. The Iranians insist on it—and, for their part, are playing a game of reverse psychology: 'This Guy Has No Will for a Deal,' read a headline in the semiofficial Tehran Times on June 7, referencing Trump. But both sides have compelling reasons to want these talks to come to something. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. Steven Witkoff, the Trump administration's top negotiator, has proffered a plan that reportedly suggests outsourcing Iran's uranium enrichment to a regional consortium. The enrichment would be for civilian purposes, and the consortium would include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Qatar and Turkey. The idea is to remove the technical capacity from Iranian hands and internationalize the process. Whether this consortium would do its work on Iranian soil or elsewhere, however, is not clear. And as Richard Nephew, an American diplomat who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, told me, this is the nub of the issue—'centrifuges in Iran'—in relation to which 'a consortium is window-dressing.' Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to Iran's security establishment, told me that Iran has 'seriously studied' Washington's consortium proposal and could accept it only if at least some enrichment were to be done on Iranian soil. One option might be to use Iran's islands in the Persian Gulf for this purpose, he added. These are part of Iran but geographically close to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and therefore easier to monitor than the mainland. For Israel, the matter of where the enrichment happens is nonnegotiable. 'Israel would be willing to accept the consortium solution only if it is located outside of Iran, a condition that Iran, of course, will not accept,' Raz Zimmt, the head of the Iran program at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told me. 'This is Israel's official stance, and it enjoys near-unanimous support across the Israeli political spectrum.' The reasons for this are understandable: Iran's leaders, unlike many of their counterparts in the region, have never embraced a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead continue to clamor for the destruction of Israel. Just last month, Khamenei called Israel 'a cancerous, dangerous, and deadly tumor that must be removed from the region and it will be.' Israeli leaders are worried that a deal with Iran will not go far enough in disabling it from acting on its animus against Israel. In fact, hard-line Israelis cannot envision a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that doesn't involve the total dismantlement of its centrifuges and expatriation of its uranium. That's because the means to weaponize are already there. Even those, including Nephew, who advocate for a new deal caution that Iran's enrichment capacity has increased in the seven years since Trump left the 2015 agreement. Iran now has enough enriched uranium that if it sought to weaponize, it could build as many as 10 atomic weapons. Even if it shipped that stockpile elsewhere, the country would still have its advanced centrifuges. With these, experts say, Iran could hold on to just 5 percent of its current stockpile and still be able to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb inside of a month, and four bombs' worth in two months. Given this reality, according to Zimmt, the Israeli government believes that it is running out of time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And to this end, he told me, 'Israel clearly prefers no deal over a bad deal,' because without a deal, military strikes become thinkable. Many in Israel see such a confrontation as the best option—even though Iran's nuclear facilities are spread across its territory, and some are buried deep underground, making any military campaign likely to be drawn-out, complicated, and hazardous. The analysts I spoke with did not see much lasting good coming of such an assault. Nephew noted that the setback to Iran's nuclear program would likely be temporary and said that Israel would be 'infinitely better off with a good deal.' Gregory Brew, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, pointed out that Iran's regional proxies have been so weakened that Israel is in a particularly strong position at the moment. A negotiated settlement to the nuclear question could allow Israel to build on its advantage by pursuing closer ties to Arab states. This 'would be a win for Israeli security and the region as a whole,' Brew said. Back in 2015, the Arab states of the Gulf region were leery of a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal. They had poor relations with Iran and worried that an agreement might exclude their interests. Now those relations have softened, and most of the Gulf states are eager for an arrangement that could cool the region's tempers. Their support for diplomacy should be good news for Israel, which already has diplomatic, trade, and military ties with two Gulf countries (the UAE and Bahrain). The Saudis have conditioned normalization on Israel's allowing for a Palestinian state, but their language is pragmatic—Riyadh's overwhelming interest appears to be in economic development, which regional conflict only undermines. A nuclear deal that draws in the Gulf states would undoubtedly serve to better integrate Iran into the region's economy. Some in Israel may balk at this idea, preferring to see Iran isolated. But there is a case to be made that giving Iran a stake in regional peace and stability would do more to de-radicalize its foreign policy than caging it has done. Some in Israel remain skeptical. 'I don't believe that Saudi or Emirati participation in the deal carries any real significance,' Zimmt said. 'It's not something that would reassure Israel, certainly not before normalization with Saudi Arabia, and not even necessarily afterward.' Other Israeli critics of Trump and Witkoff chastise them for mistaking the ideologically driven actors of the Middle East for transactional pragmatists like themselves. Daniel Byman: Trump is making Netanyahu nervous But leaders and peoples—in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Damascus, Beirut—have grown tired of wars around religion and ideology, and many are ready to pursue development instead. This explains why Syria's new leaders have embraced Trump and promised not to fight Israel. Iran is not immune to this new regional mood. Iranian elites have reason to fear that the failure of talks will bring about devastating military strikes. But they also have reason to hope that the lifting of sanctions, and even a partial opening for the country's beleaguered economy, will be a boon to some of the moneyed interests close to the regime. Najafi told me that Iran already has a shared interest with Arabs in trying to avoid a confrontation between Israel and Iran: 'Arabs know that any military action by Israel against Iran could destroy their grand developmental projects in the region,' he said. I've talked with Iranian elites for years. Most of them have no interest in Islamism or any other ideology. They send their sons and daughters to study in American and Swiss universities, not to Shiite seminaries in Iraq or Lebanon. Khamenei's zealotry is very unlikely to outlive him in Iran's highest echelons of power. A diplomatic deal, however flawed, will not only curtail Iran's nuclear program but also put the country on a path defined by its economic and pragmatic interests. A more regionally integrated Iran is likely to be much less belligerent, as it will have relations with the Saudis and Emiratis to maintain. The regime will likely be forced to drop many of its revolutionary pretensions, as it already has toward Saudi Arabia: Iran once considered the kingdom illegitimate, but it now goes out of its way to maintain good ties with Riyadh. Although this might sound unthinkable today, ultimately the regime will have to drop its obsession with Israel as well, for the same pragmatic reason that Arab countries have done in the past. The alternative to a deal is an extensive military campaign—most likely, a direct war between Iran and Israel—with unpredictable consequences. The notion that such a confrontation would lead to positive political change in Iran is a fantasy. Just as likely, the regime will hunker down under duress, prolonging its hold on power. This is why even the most pro-Israel figures in the Iranian opposition, such as former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, oppose military strikes on Iran. Iran's population harbors very little hostility to Israel. A group of student activists recently tried to organize an anti-Israel rally at the University of Tehran, but only a couple of dozen people joined them, a small fraction of those who have turned out for rallies in Cairo, Amman, or New York City. But a direct war that costs Iranian civilian lives would easily change this. The future of Iran and Israel does not need to lie in hostility. That's why a deal that keeps Iran from going nuclear and avoids military strikes is the least bad option for everyone.
