Iran Nuclear Deal Likely as Trump Told Military Option Leads to Regional War

Feb. 23—Iranian negotiators working on a compromise plan that would end their countries nuclear weapons ambitions while allowing it a large program for the peaceful use of nuclear energy have told their American counterparts that any military strike on Iran would lead war throughout the region and end President Donald Trump's plans for peace in Gaza.

Sources close to the White House say that the Iranian negotiators have told their counterparts, through back channels, that any strike on Iran, even one with limited targets, would be met with an all out response, that would unleash Iranian missiles on Israel and American targets throughout the region; the counterattacks would include advanced weapons, with precision guidance, that would pierce American and Israeli defenses, and do potentially catastrophic damage and casualties.

The messages came in response to published reports in the New York Times and elsewhere that Trump was considering a limited military strike if negotiations this week in Geneva failed to reach a compromise deal, and that he holds open the possibility of another strike, later in the year, that would aim for toppling the regime in Tehran. The published reports, sources report, are complicating efforts to reach and agreement, whose main remaining sticking point is how to allow Iran some capabilities to enrich Uranium to levels well below weapons grade.

Meeting This Week in Geneva to Hear Compromises

Iran will make a proposal on this at the now-scheduled Feb. 27 meeting in Geneva, which the U.S., sources report, will be tipped off on its content, so it can respond quickly. These sources say a number of proposals are being considered, and a mix of them is likely to be presented. The important point, said one source, is that the U.S. has moved off its "zero enrichment" position, and the Iranians are willing to accept limits, which means that a compromise can likely be reached. Iran, the sources report, has already agreed to renounce any plans to develop a nuclear weapon, and to accept a"vigorous" inspection program, most likely to be conducted with involvement from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the UN, which Iran has recently re-established relations, after it denied access to their inspectors following last year's strike by Israel and the United States on its nuclear facilities.

In addition, Iran has agreed to turn over its stockpiles of enriched Uranium to a third party, most likely Russia.

On such compromise proposal would declare a 3-year moratorium on enrichment in Iran. During that time, procedures and plans would be put in place to allow for inspected enrichment for peaceful uses, which would include the development of "several" nuclear reactors, some of which will be used for desalination to solve the country's severe water shortages. The reactors and related facilities would be built with cooperation from American companies. Iran would receive both immediate (on signing) sanctions relief, then additional relief in specified phases over the initial term of the deal.

Another proposal would have Iran keep operating an enrichment facility for medically required research and purposes, while shuttering their more advanced enrichment facilities.

'There's A Deal to Be Had'

"There is clearly a deal to be had here," said one source, familiar with the discussions. "Iran is agreeing to end its weapons ambitions, which many people believe it really gave up in 2003. It is willing to severely limit enrichment, and agree to strict inspections. There are two things that Trump needs to understand: One, is that Iran does not want a war, not of any kind. So, it wants to make a deal. And, two, if Iran is attacked, they are not going to play games, like in the so-called 12 day war. They will respond with devastating consequences, with advanced missiles. On the missiles—that is the only real deterence against Israelis and their allies like the United States. They may agree to some future curbs, but they are not giving up its missile program.

"Trump may want to force a regime change," said the source, "but one hopes that he is listening to saner people in his military and people like Witkoff. Air strikes won't produce regime change. It is going to require ground troops, and a lot of them, if that is where he is going. He had better ask his own people. Do Americans want to send their troops to die in Iran, and for who—the United States? No, for Israel. He has this giant armada present, but if Trump uses them, and Iran does not collapse. Then, he, Trump is personally and politically defeated. He should think—now who wants me defeated? Then, he will understand where the advice to go for a military strike on Iran is coming from, and immediately look for and take the 'off ramp' in this crisis."

Iran Will Be Reasonable

 Iranian Foreign Minister and its chief negotiator Abbas Araghchi, insisted in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday that the country was not ready to give up what he said was its “right” to make nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But he said the Iran would be reasonable in working on a deal.

“I believe that still there is a good chance to have a diplomatic solution,” Aarghchi said, adding, “So there is no need for any military buildup, and military buildup cannot help it and cannot pressurize us.”