Washington: A lasting peace between Iran and Israel remains out of reach unless the United States re-engages diplomatically with Tehran, warns Dr. Vali Nasr, a respected Middle East expert and former adviser to the US State Department. In two new essays published Thursday — one in The New York Times and another in Time Magazine — Dr. Nasr offers a sobering assessment of the recent Iran-Israel confrontation and its broader implications.
According to Dr. Nasr, the current crisis marks one of the most significant tests for Iran’s Islamic regime since the 1979 revolution. He argues that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei views this conflict not as an isolated incident, but as part of a broader existential struggle against the West — particularly the United States and Israel.
“Khamenei has upheld Iran’s hardline stance toward the West for nearly four decades,” Nasr writes in the NYT. “This latest escalation, sparked by Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, is likely to harden that position even further.”
Yet while Tehran’s response has projected defiance, Nasr notes it has also been measured. “Iran is not looking for war,” he explains. “Its actions are intended to show strength, but without provoking all-out conflict with the US or Israel.”
In Time Magazine, Nasr delves deeper into what he calls Iran’s “choreographed response” — one designed to send a clear message without inviting open war. He credits President Donald Trump’s declaration of a ceasefire with halting the confrontation, but cautions that this momentary pause does not represent true peace.
“Iran and Israel may have stepped back from the brink,” Nasr writes, “but the conditions that led to this conflict still remain.”
One of the core concerns is Iran’s nuclear program. Despite Israel’s military success in recent strikes, Nasr notes that Tehran’s nuclear capability has not been fully dismantled. He warns that without a new, comprehensive agreement between Washington and Tehran, Iran will likely continue efforts to rebuild its program — pointing to its current stockpile of 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which could theoretically be used to build up to 10 nuclear bombs.
“The only way to prevent another war — or something worse — is through meaningful diplomacy,” Nasr insists.
But diplomacy won’t be easy. Nasr emphasizes that the breakdown of the 2015 nuclear deal, which the US abandoned in 2018, deeply eroded Iranian trust. “The Iranians no longer believe American promises,” he writes. “To restore dialogue, Washington will need to offer not just economic relief, but credible security guarantees — and a commitment to restraining future Israeli strikes.”
Nasr also highlights the complex public mood inside Iran. While many citizens are patriotic and support national defense, there’s also a deep desire for peace and economic stability. US officials once hoped that hardship would drive Iranians to turn against their government — but, according to Nasr, that hasn’t happened.
Instead, the conflict appears to have rallied public sentiment around the regime, even as it raises internal questions about Iran’s direction. “The pressure is building,” he says. “If the economy continues to suffer, serious debates over the Islamic Republic’s policies are inevitable.”
In the end, Nasr sees both sides at a crossroads. For Iran, the question is whether the pursuit of nuclear deterrence is worth the cost of global isolation. For the US, it’s whether to continue down a path of confrontation — or return to the negotiating table.
“Diplomacy will be difficult,” Nasr concludes, “but it remains the best — and possibly the only — way to avoid another devastating war.”
