Terrorist state: leader says we can’t make peace

Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to Washington, is sounding the alarm about a potential ceasefire between the United States and Iran, arguing that a hurried deal could carry serious risks for regional stability and long-term security. His concerns center on how a pause in hostilities might allow Tehran to regroup, deepen ties with proxy forces, and erode deterrence that has kept wider conflict in check.

As diplomats weigh options and headlines track negotiations, Oren’s perspective frames a larger debate: can de-escalation be achieved without surrendering leverage? His warnings underscore the tension between immediate calm and strategic consequences that could reshape the Middle East for years.

Why some experts say a US-Iran ceasefire could be dangerous

Oren and other analysts argue that a formal or informal ceasefire would not automatically translate to a lasting peace. Instead, they fear it could offer Tehran the breathing room to pursue objectives that are harder to reverse once the world attention drifts away.

• Reconstitution of military capabilities: A pause could let Iran accelerate missile and drone programs with less interference, replenish stockpiles, and refine tactics used by its regional proxies.
• Strengthening proxy networks: Groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria could use the lull to expand recruitment, logistics, and cross-border coordination, raising the baseline threat level across multiple fronts.
• Undermining sanctions leverage: Any relaxation tied to a ceasefire risks diluting the economic pressure that has been a key lever over Tehran’s strategic choices.
• Perception of diminished deterrence: An agreement perceived as one-sided or premature could encourage aggressive behavior by states that doubt the long-term resolve of the US and its allies.

How a ceasefire could change the regional balance of power

Beyond tactical concerns, Oren highlights broader geopolitical shifts that might follow a US-Iran truce. These shifts would not be limited to bilateral relations but would ripple through alliances, proxy dynamics, and nuclear calculations.

• Proxy emboldenment: Hezbollah, Houthi forces, and Iraqi militias could interpret a ceasefire as validation, expanding their operational footprint.
• Nuclear program trajectory: Reduced pressure may enable Tehran to redirect resources into nuclear research or covert pathways, complicating nonproliferation efforts.
• Regional arms races: Neighboring states could accelerate their own military programs in response, prompting an arms buildup and raising the risk of miscalculation.
• Shift in alliance behavior: US partners, including Israel and Gulf states, might recalibrate their security strategies—ranging from deeper self-reliance to covert operations—if they perceive decreased US commitment.

Practical policy options to mitigate the risks of a ceasefire

Policymakers face a delicate task: pursuing de-escalation while preserving deterrence and verification. Oren’s critique points to a mix of diplomatic and security measures that could accompany any pause in violence.

• Link ceasefire terms to robust verification mechanisms, including international inspectors and transparent reporting.
• Maintain targeted sanctions that close loopholes and preserve pressure on key Iranian programs.
• Enhance intelligence sharing and defense cooperation with regional partners to deter proxy attacks.
• Negotiate clear timelines and benchmarks for phased relief tied to verifiable behavior changes.
• Plan contingency steps—diplomatic, economic, and military—to respond swiftly if Tehran or its proxies violate terms.

Domestic politics and credibility risks in Washington and Jerusalem

Oren also points to the political dimension: any agreement will be read through the lens of domestic audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. Leaders face pressure to show tangible results while avoiding measures that appear to reward bad behavior.

• US considerations: Administrations must balance the appetite for diplomacy against congressional skepticism and the potential electoral fallout if a deal is seen as weak.
• Israeli concerns: Israeli policymakers and public opinion demand assurances that national security won’t be compromised, prompting calls for security guarantees or unilateral measures.
• Regional credibility: Gulf states and other partners watch closely; perceived US softness could push them toward hedging strategies, including arms purchases or closer ties with alternative powers.

Scenarios to monitor as talks progress

• Best-case: A strictly monitored, reversible agreement that reduces immediate violence while preserving pressure and oversight.
• Middle ground: A temporary lull tied to vague commitments, leaving open the prospect of renewed escalation once international attention shifts.
• Worst-case: A deal that relaxes constraints without verification, enabling Tehran to expand influence and accelerate sensitive programs.

You might also like:

• Iran nuclear threat persists as Tehran expands uranium enrichment program
• Iran’s Islamic Republic: why it must fall
• Trump deals devastating blow to anti-Israel sentiment
• Iran’s regional influence raises alarms over authoritarian expansion
• Kurds betrayed by the West: what it means for regional stability

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.