Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
The latest Israeli airstrikes on Iran, including reported strikes on the Natanz nuclear facility and the assassination of senior IRGC commanders, have pushed the region toward another dangerous escalation. In response, President Donald Trump, newly returned to office, issued a blunt warning: “Make a deal before there’s nothing left.”
That framing, deal or destruction, reflects more than just Trumpian bravado. It exposes a deeper contradiction in U.S. strategic thinking and a broader crisis of credibility in international diplomacy. At the heart of this contradiction lies a structural question that international relations realist theorists of every stripe should recognize: why would Iran abandon the pursuit of nuclear deterrence if Israel is allowed to strike it at will, with no legal, diplomatic, or military consequence?
Preemption and the Logic of Power
Offensive realism, as advanced by theorists like John Mearsheimer, posits that great powers seek to maximize their security through dominance. Israel’s behavior fits neatly within this logic: preemptively degrade adversaries’ capabilities to maintain regional supremacy. Its military doctrine has long relied on force projection to preserve deterrence, from the 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor to its 2007 bombing of Syria’s Al-Kibar site.
But Tehran reads from the same script. For decades it has weathered sanctions, cyberattacks, assassinations, and now, open aerial assault. The lesson is bitter but clear. In a world where the law is selective and promises are broken, strength becomes the only insurance policy. Trust becomes a luxury, and restraint a risk too dangerous to take. The 2015 nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was supposed to be the exception. It offered economic relief and a path back into the international fold. Tehran complied. Inspections were carried out. Enrichment was curbed. And still, the United States under Trump’s leadership tore it apart just three years later.
What followed was not just diplomatic regression but philosophical injury. When law is made to serve only the powerful and when commitments are disposable, then words lose weight. Agreements become illusions. In such a world, why would Iran disarm?
The Asymmetry of the Non-Proliferation Regime
The global non-proliferation structure commands respect only when enforcement is matched by consistency. Without fairness and impartiality, it becomes yet another instrument of selective punishment. Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is widely acknowledged to have nuclear weapons. No inspections. No sanctions. No Security Council debates. It is a nuclear state in all but name, sheltered by silence. Iran, on the other hand, remains a signatory. It has no confirmed nuclear weapons. Yet it is surveilled and sanctioned. Its scientists have been assassinated. Its facilities were attacked. It has endured what may be the most invasive inspection regime ever imposed.
This is not a legal asymmetry. It is a moral collapse. It tells the world that the rules don’t apply equally. They apply to the weak. They apply to the disobedient. The lesson is: if you want impunity, reject the treaty. Ambiguity brings protection. Yet, this very lopsidedness, strategic or legal, corrodes the foundation of global non-proliferation. The system designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons may now be teaching others how to get there.
Cuban Missile Crisis—A Good Lesson?
History doesn’t instruct. It lingers. Fragments stay unfinished, uncomfortable, and misread. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, everything tilted. Not because men were brave. Not because strategy prevailed. Because the next step was too far, and everyone knew it. The crisis ended not with fanfare or flags, but with quiet promises. No one claimed victory. They simply stepped back. The Soviets removed their missiles. The United States pledged not to invade Cuba. That promise was never formalized in a treaty, never etched into the rituals of international law. And yet, it held.
For over six decades, Washington has kept its word. No invasion. No regime change. Just the quiet endurance of an agreement rooted in mutual fear and mutual recognition. It stands as one of the rare instances when a great power offered a real assurance and meant it. This is what Iran seeks. Not affection. Just the basic recognition of its right to exist unthreatened. A world where military restraint is not a favor extended, but a condition honored. Where disarmament is not suicide, and sovereignty is not negotiable. But if the United States cannot offer even what it once gave Cuba—if it cannot, through law, protocol, or U.N. commitment, guarantee that Iran will not be bombed into compliance—then there is little rational incentive for Tehran to return to the negotiating table.
The Calculus in Beijing and Moscow
That question grows louder as war takes shape. In June 2025, the proxy theatre gave way to direct confrontation. Israeli jets struck deep into Iranian territory. Tehran responded with missiles that landed in Israel. Cities burned. Oil depots exploded. The long-looming shadow became real. And once again, eyes turned eastward: would Russia and China intervene? They did what was expected. They condemned. But beyond words, they moved little. Beijing, bound to Iran through pipelines, contracts, and strategy, is less concerned with justice than with flow. Oil must move. The Strait of Hormuz must remain open. Instability threatens the architecture of its ascent. Its concern is continuity, not confrontation.
Moscow, knee-deep in Ukraine and buoyed by surging oil prices, finds utility in the chaos. Every explosion in the Gulf distracts from its own war and drives the price of survival higher. But it too is careful. No alliances will be tested. No risks taken. Neither power will bleed for Iran. Their posture is not one of solidarity but of cold preservation. This is not a new axis. It is the realism of restraint, where stability is hoarded and sacrifice outsourced.
The Rules-Based Order on the Brink
This crisis is not just about Iran. It is about whether powerful states will uphold the system they created. The liberal international order is often criticized for its hypocrisy, but even realists agree that some system is better than none.
If the U.S. continues to endorse Israeli preemption while demanding Iranian compliance, it will accelerate the breakdown of that order. Other states will take note. Proliferation will spread. The utility of treaties and international law will wear away. And in that world, one governed not by norms, but by raw power. And no actor, not even the United States, will be able to dominate indefinitely.
A Final Word: The Choice Before Us
Iran will not disarm without guarantees. If Washington is serious about stopping this slow descent into a regional war, it must first confront the truth it has long evaded: you cannot bomb your way to diplomacy. Not with Iran. Not with anyone who remembers betrayal dressed as dialogue.
That recognition begins with consistency. The same United States that once offered Cuba a quiet but lasting guarantee must now offer Iran something more than press conferences and threats. It must put words to law and law to action. Otherwise, there is nothing left to negotiate, only the illusion of process as the missiles fly.
For in a world where power speaks louder than promises, where treaties are torn and preemption is policy, the question is no longer who holds the upper hand. The question is how long this crumbling order can bear its own contradictions before it falls—taking with it not just peace, but the idea that peace was ever possible.
