Iran War Negotiations: Accepting a Bad Deal May Be Worse Than Walking Away

Much of the Iran war discourse of the past several weeks has been about whether or not we are close to a deal with Iran and what that deal might or should look like. But that’s the wrong question. What we should be asking is whether we get more out of having an agreement than not having one. There are good reasons to doubt that we would.

To start with, of course, it would help if we had a clear idea of what we’re fighting for in the first place. As I’ve argued from the outset, given that we already bombed Iran in mid-2025, a significant escalation to target the regime itself made sense only if we actually aimed to bring the regime down. Which is something we should want. The regime, not its armaments, is the real weapon of mass destruction, and it always was. It will be at war with us as long as it exists, no matter what tools it has to pursue that war. It will be a weapon in the hands of China and Russia, too. By contrast, while we prefer to avoid nuclear proliferation, a less radically anti-American regime would be far less of a threat even with more weapons.

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

Much of the Iran war discourse of the past several weeks has been about whether or not we are close to a deal with Iran and what that deal might or should look like. But that’s the wrong question. What we should be asking is whether we get more out of having an agreement than not having one. There are good reasons to doubt that we would.

To start with, of course, it would help if we had a clear idea of what we’re fighting for in the first place. As I’ve argued from the outset, given that we already bombed Iran in mid-2025, a significant escalation to target the regime itself made sense only if we actually aimed to bring the regime down. Which is something we should want. The regime, not its armaments, is the real weapon of mass destruction, and it always was. It will be at war with us as long as it exists, no matter what tools it has to pursue that war. It will be a weapon in the hands of China and Russia, too. By contrast, while we prefer to avoid nuclear proliferation, a less radically anti-American regime would be far less of a threat even with more weapons.