With Trump, Iran may have to abandon its ‘delay, deflect, deny’ playbook

Mark T. Kimmitt is a retired U.S. Army brigadier general and has also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. Despite the stern face portrayed on Iran’s government television, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is facing the most significant challenge to his legitimacy since assuming power in 1989. Indeed, the view from the supreme leader’s office Beit-e Rahbari must be quite parlous, with security forces gunning down peaceful protestors who took to the streets amid a collapsing economy, inflation out of control and a water catastrophe unseen in modern times. On top of that looms the threat of U.S. President Donald Trump, and the knowledge that Israel would be happy to assist in any move Washington might make. Advertisement Even Khamenei’s recent outreach toward the U.S. — a tried-and-true method to buy time and diminish expectations — doesn’t seem to be working this time. But the ayatollah isn’t delusional, and must surely recognize he needs a lifeline. I believe he would do well to take one, and that Trump would do well to make such an offer. The recent U.S. operation in Venezuela is perhaps instructive here. The U.S. isn’t seeking a change in the Venezuelan regime, merely a change in its behavior, and is prepared to maintain the status quo. However, unlike the vague threat of drugs, sanctions-busting oil sales or longstanding Chavismo in America’s backyard, the threats from Iran are specific, existential and have been consistent over the years. A deal on those threats — Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, its missile program and its vast destabilizing proxy network — will be the terms of any perpetuation of the regime. And it must also include forgiveness for the protestors, protection of the right to peaceful future demonstrations, and the transparent prosecution of those responsible for killing unarmed civilians. For the U.S., airstrikes against key regime targets should be considered, as without a kinetic demonstration of resolve, the regime may believe it can withstand Washington’s rhetorical pressure. Strikes would also be an opportunity to bring the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary Basij elements responsible for the killing of thousands of protestors to justice, and to again hit missile and nuclear targets still recovering from the blows they took back in June. But airstrikes also come with two major risks. The first is casualties and prisoners: Iran’s regime has a long history of hostage-taking, from the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979 to the U.S. hostages incarcerated today. The risk of American troops rotting in Evin Prison is one Washington will want to avoid. Advertisement Second, airstrikes risk retaliation on U.S. bases within range of Iran’s vast rocket, missile and terrorist networks. The June 2025 attack on Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar is a clear sign that Iran is able and willing to fire on the U.S., and in the current scenario a larger response and casualties should be expected. Now let’s look at the terms of a possible deal. Before anything else, Iran’s nuclear weapons development...

Preview: ~500 words