Trump’s Return to the Field: Another Attack or a Historic Agreement
Trump’s Return to the Field: Another Attack or a Historic Agreement
According to IranGate News Agency, amidst escalating tensions in the Middle East and the official end of the Iran nuclear deal, a series of analyses from international study centers and media, including the Atlantic Council, Russia Insider, Modern Diplomacy, and Daily Sabah, have outlined the region’s future between two unstable paths: fragile diplomacy or imminent military conflict. These reports, each from a different perspective, indicate that increasing instability, the weakening of non-Western alliances, and the lack of sustainable solutions have placed the Middle East on the brink of difficult and decisive decisions.
The Atlantic Council: From the Gaza Ceasefire to the Prospect of a Broad Regional Agreement
In a joint analysis by Stephanie Hausheer Ali, a Middle East researcher, and Cornerstone Klein, a former U.S. Air Force officer and former State Department official, the American think tank Atlantic Council examined the diplomatic developments following the Gaza ceasefire.
The analysis states that the Trump administration’s successful handling of the Gaza crisis demonstrated that with the direct involvement of the President and the use of creative negotiation methods, even the most complex cases can be resolved. The authors believe this success could serve as a platform for achieving a broader regional agreement, one that includes Iran’s participation.
In the first scenario, achieving such an agreement requires offering tangible incentives to Iran, including lifting sanctions, participating in regional development projects, and providing security guarantees. Simultaneously, to convince Israel, the U.S. should pursue a combination of political pressure and defensive incentives, including new security pacts and mediation in regional conflicts such as the Houthis.
The authors emphasize that with the weakening of Iran’s proxy groups’ positions and the erosion of its resources in Syria and Lebanon, Tehran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities have become its most important bargaining tools.
Therefore, the Islamic Republic will only be willing to show flexibility if it can secure prestigious concessions for its public opinion.
In the second scenario, the failure to reach an agreement and the continuation of the unstable situation not only keeps the threat of war alive but also endangers energy security, regional investments, and global trade.
Thus, a comprehensive agreement can only change the region’s path if diplomatic efforts continue, trust is gradually built, and the maximalist positions of the trilateral Iran, the U.S., and Israel are overcome.
In conclusion, the authors express hope that perhaps Trump’s team, relying on past experience and the support of advisors like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, can play a key role in drafting a win-win agreement.
Russia Insider: Iran Alone on the Brink of a Second Conflict Post-JCPOA
In an analysis by Mikhail Bordykin, a Russian journalist and Iran specialist, the news outlet Insider evaluated Iran’s position after the official end of the nuclear agreement in October 2025.
The analysis states that Tehran’s official announcement of non-compliance with nuclear commitments occurred while the country was under severe international sanctions, Israeli military attacks, and diplomatic isolation.
Coordinated Israeli attacks on the Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan facilities not only set back Iran’s nuclear program but also exposed the country’s serious vulnerability to airstrikes.
Western sources estimate that these attacks have caused at least a two-year setback in Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, the energy crisis and continued sanctions have pushed Iran’s economy to the brink of collapse.
In these conditions, although Tehran suffered heavy blows from the 12-day war with Israel, including the disabling of defense systems and the destruction of a large part of its missile capacity, Iranian military officials emphasize rebuilding defensive capabilities. The harsh statements about developing long-range missiles are perceived more as a defensive posture than a show of strength.
Insider also points to the reduced operational support from China and Russia for Iran, noting that despite some limited cooperation, such as the delivery of J10 and MiG29 fighters, there is no sign of a strategic commitment from the East to defend Iran.
This situation has placed Iran in a position of strategic isolation, where there is no hope for dialogue with the West and no real support from its Eastern partners.
In such an environment, the only remaining option, according to the author, is the language of power, a scenario that may lead the governments of Israel and the U.S. to once again consider the military option.
Modern Diplomacy: The Crisis of Alliances – Why Iran Remained Alone in Times of Crisis
In an article by Mohammad Zahirul Islam Miaji, a visiting professor of international relations at North South University in Bangladesh, the international journal Modern Diplomacy analyzed the structural weakness of non-Western alliances in supporting Iran.
The author emphasizes the importance of stable alliances in international relations, noting that despite internal divisions, the Western alliance has a cohesive and effective structure in times of crisis, whereas non-Western countries like Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea lack cohesion, mutual trust, and joint operational capability.
This inability was clearly demonstrated during Israel’s extensive airstrikes on Iran in June 2025. Despite Israel’s use of regional airspace to conduct operations, there was no practical reaction from China or Russia. The relationships of these countries with Iran are more transactional than strategic, according to the author.
The author further points to the collapse of Iran’s regional network, known as the Axis of Resistance. The assassination of key figures such as Hassan Nasrallah and Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran without decisive reciprocal reactions undermined Iran’s credibility as a guarantor of its proxy forces’ security.
Ultimately, the author warns that non-Western alliances only make sense when their players are willing to bear shared costs; otherwise, these countries will remain isolated and vulnerable in times of crisis.
Daily Sabah: The Prospect of a Second Iran-Israel War – Deterrence or Escalation
In an analysis by Oral Toga, a researcher at the Iran Studies Center (IRAM), the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah examined the potential consequences of the twelve-day Iran-Israel war and the possibility of a second round of conflict.
Toga believes that the ceasefire established on June 24, 2025, does not signify a reduction in tension but merely a temporary suspension of hostilities. He argues that although Israel inflicted heavy damage on Iran’s infrastructure, it did not achieve its strategic objectives, such as assassinating Iranian leaders or inciting internal uprisings.
Instead, political cohesion within Iran increased, and public demand for strengthening nuclear capabilities rose. On the other hand, Israel faces serious challenges, including the loss of the element of surprise, increased Iranian security coordination, and reduced international legitimacy, especially in Western public opinion.
If a second conflict begins, Israel’s goals will likely include mobile launchers and missile command centers. However, experience has shown that the destruction of infrastructure does not necessarily lead to political collapse. Iran still retains the capacity for reconstruction and reciprocal response. As a result, the author warns that although the likelihood of a second war is very serious, such a conflict is unlikely to result in a decisive victory for either side. From Israel’s perspective, the continuation of Iran’s missile program and the reconstruction of its military structures are seen as increasing threats, but the political, military, and diplomatic obstacles to further action have also become very heavy.
In contrast, while Iran does not welcome conflict with confidence in its deterrent capabilities, it maintains readiness for a strong response should war occur.
Overall, another war between Iran and Israel might lead to a Pyrrhic victory for the aggressor, a victory whose political, economic, and human costs outweigh its potential benefits.
