What if US-Iran deal is too good to be true? Potential options for Middle East's future - analysis

The US and Iran appear poised to agree on a path forward toward some kind of deal. It is not entirely clear what is being agreed upon or what may emerge in the coming days. Over the past months, there have been many similar claims that a deal is about to be signed. In many cases, the actual points being agreed upon were not a deal, but rather a type of memorandum of understanding (MoU) to reach a deal in the future.

The president thought that the Iranian regime would collapse quickly, but it did not. In fact, it has been strengthened strategically by its survival against a heavy US-Israeli assault and [by] carrying out some effective counterstrikes. Many countries in the region are now courting Iran and looking to de-escalate and rebuild ties. A sign of which way the wind is blowing.”

What could happen in the next few days and months?

There are many possibilities based on what we know and what we don’t know. This is an opportune time to be reminded of former US Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld’s famous “known unknowns” and “unknown knowns.”

One scenario is that an MoU is agreed and signed in Switzerland.

In an optimistic scenario, both Iran and the US believe they have won something, and even Israel is content to wait and see. After the signing in Switzerland, the mediators in Islamabad, Doha, and other places move to work on a deal. Iran ends the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and the US ends the blockade of Iran.

There is an agreement to remove enriched uranium from Iran. Iran gets sanctions relief. Everything returns to normal in the Middle East, and there is stabilization. With the war behind everyone, the US can work on a new era in the region and pivot to focus on other issues in Europe and Asia. With the Strait open, the economies of the region improve, and Israel and the Gulf states can work toward closer integration.

The continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz means countries need alternative trade routes, and this means developing more overland trade via Syria. The White House comes to accept that the war won’t end but that it won’t spill over, either. A new status quo is low-level conflict.

A third scenario envisions an MoU signed this week, but negotiations between Iran and the US drag on throughout the summer. Iran and the US can’t come to a final agreement. Iran likely prefers this. Tehran assumes that once an interim deal is done, the White House sees the benefit of no more conflict and that US partners in the region – such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan – urge the US not to re-start the war.

These become new “rounds” of conflict, a new norm in which Israel and Iran engage in short conflicts every few months. The US needs to keep military refuelers in Israel, and Ben-Gurion Airport continues to experience travel chaos.

There is then a push to have the US shift basing to Israel rather than the Gulf. With elections looming for Israel in the fall, more rounds of conflict take place with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Iran’s government agrees to an MoU. However, as Iran moves forward in talks with the US, in the divided Iranian system, weakened by war, and with military commanders cut off from one another, there is a coup in Tehran. It may come from the IRGC and so-called “hardliners” who oppose a deal.

It could also come from the army, seeking to pre-empt a hardliner coup. The low-level chaos in Iran now creates uncertainty. The US now knows it can’t rely on Iran to sign a final accord because it’s not clear who is in charge.

Iran may sign an agreement this week, but a final status agreement will be difficult to achieve. In this scenario, the Trump administration decides to use force over the summer or the fall to pressure Iran back to the peace table. This results in the US demanding that it also receive payment for its troubles.