Talking or fighting, all of Iran’s options are bad

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. President Trump’s ultimatum to Iran to negotiate away its nuclear program or face a possible attack leaves Tehran with a daunting dilemma: Either path risks putting the already weakened regime in a more precarious position. “Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal—NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS—one that is good for all parties.

Time is running out," Trump posted on social media Wednesday. “The next attack will be far worse!" A decision to halt enrichment of uranium, a key U.S. demand, would be a humiliating public retreat on a core national priority for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Rebuffing the demand is increasingly likely to prompt Trump to order strikes, further exposing the government’s vulnerability. Either way, the regime is facing the most dire external threats to its survival in decades after protests over deep economic woes grew so fierce that they could only be put down with a deadly crackdown. “Their strategy right now is just buying time," said Alan Eyre, a former senior U.S.

diplomat who specialized in Iran and is now at the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank. “Their whole strategic outlook is when you’re in a weak position you don’t compromise, because that invites further aggression." Trump said Wednesday that a “massive Armada" was “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose," adding that it was “ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary." The Pentagon’s buildup in the region includes an aircraft carrier with three guided missiles destroyers, warplanes and missile defenses. Iran was in a similar position a year ago.