The problem with the argument for another deal is that it assumes the Iranian regime can be persuaded to abandon a strategy it has pursued for more than four decades. The IRGC did not spend decades building proxy networks across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond simply to walk away from them because of another diplomatic agreement.

The Obama-era deal should serve as a cautionary tale. While it may have delayed certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, it did not change the regime’s regional behavior. On the contrary, many across the Middle East watched Tehran continue to expand its influence through armed proxies, deepen its involvement in regional conflicts, and further undermine the sovereignty of neighboring states.

This is why many people in the region fear that another agreement would simply become another lifeline. A deal that provides financial relief, international legitimacy, or strategic breathing room without fundamentally changing the regime’s conduct risks repeating the mistakes of the past.

President Trump has repeatedly argued that terrorism should be confronted through strength and accountability, not accommodated through endless concessions. Any agreement must be judged by actions, not promises.

Lasting stability will not come from agreements that preserve the very structures responsible for decades of violence and instability. It will come only with the complete dismantling of the IRGC’s regional terror infrastructure and the end of its ability to finance, arm, train, and direct proxy forces across the Middle East.