Many practices make the Iranian regime appear abhorrent. However, the pursuit of nuclear weapons is particularly dangerous. The promise not to build a bomb was contradicted by the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels. This has long been the basis for the regime’s attempts to intimidate its neighbors and threaten Israel’s existence.

Will an air war make the situation in Iran worse?

Should the one from the USA and Israel triggered war on February 28th Even if it is only considered a limited success, it must set Iran’s nuclear ambitions back by years – ideally forever. The best way to achieve this would be a transition of power to a democracy that focuses on improving the living conditions of the population and living peacefully with neighbors.

Such a government would pose the least threat. But an air war is unlikely to produce such a renewal. It could even make the situation worse.

How much risk is Khamenei taking?

The regime probably understands that the status of a so-called emerging power makes it a target – and that a nuclear program only offers protection if it is fully implemented. Dem new Supreme Leader, Modshtaba Khameneiit is said that he is even more determined than his late father and predecessor to pursue a bomb – and may also want revenge after the death of family members.

In Iran, these arguments may overshadow the fact that American and Israeli missiles and bombs have inflicted severe damage on the economy. Although he knows that further steps towards nuclear weapons would be met with exceptional military force, Khamenei could accept this risk.

Enriched uranium is a serious threat

A postwar Iran would begin its program with a head start. Around 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium are hidden in the country – enough material for around ten bombs.

Whether in the hands of a hostile regime or, if order collapses, a warlord looking for a buyer, this fissile material poses a grave threat.

Three options for the US in Iran: 1. Use ground troops

The US has three options: The first, advocated by some in Israel, would be the Use of special forcesto secure the material. As described, this would require a massive, days-long operation – with a specialized strike force protected by more than 1,000 soldiers and supported by constant air support. This is possible, but demanding and risky.

In addition, the US has lost the element of surprise, and intelligence information suggests that the 400 kilograms are spread across two or even three locations – possibly partially out of reach. In addition, Iran would have to restart enrichment, but would retain its technical know-how.

2nd option: Regular air strikes when there is a threat

This gives rise to a second option: to bomb Iran every time it poses a threat. This war showed how costly that would be. Iran has learned that even its relatively simple drones and missiles can rattle global energy markets and destabilize Gulf states – states that present themselves as oases of calm to investors and expats.

American voters would probably reject war if every military conflict only resets the clock until the next conflict. In addition, US strategists do not want to be tied to the Middle East while their strategic focus is on China.

3rd option: Deal with Iran’s regime

What remains is an agreement with the regime to end the nuclear threat. This is a difficult option: Khamenei could reject an agreement. The regime could agree and later cheat. Still, it is the best option.

Iran is exhausted after the bombings. To rebuild its economy, the country needs sanctions lifted. In return, it could be willing to conclude a permanent agreement as part of a ceasefire – with an end to uranium enrichment, international monitoring of the nuclear program and the dilution or removal of highly enriched uranium.

It would be a questionable compromise. In 2015, Barack Obama negotiated a similar – albeit temporary – agreement, which Donald Trump canceled in 2018. This makes the criticism of his Iran policy all the more serious: eight years and two wars later, there is no better option.