A deal has been struck with Iran, which will reportedly be signed on Friday. On any given day before then, and even after, the United States could launch strikes on Iran, take over Kharg Island, or target the Houthis. President Donald Trump knows how to keep the Iranian regime off balance using media, social media, leaks, and expectations to manipulate the environment. That is what makes him a master negotiator. But a real solution to instability in the Middle East and global oil markets can only come from regime change in Iran.
The White House goals are to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, sever support for terrorist proxies, and ensure the regime never acquires a nuclear weapon. Yet the memorandum of understanding reportedly only “conceptually” addresses Iran’s nuclear material and would mainly reopen the Strait of Hormuz while deferring the hardest questions to later talks. That is not a resolution.
We already had President Barack Obama’s failed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Supporters of another deal argue that pressure can force compliance. But a deal that truly eliminated the threat would do much more than freeze activity on paper. It would require verifiable dismantlement of enrichment capacity, meaningful limits on missile production, and a real end to the regime’s sponsorship of armed proxies. Those are not side issues.
TRUMP’S ISRAEL HYPOCRISY: RULES FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME
The current Iranian government, built on coercion at home and armed terrorist armies abroad, will never surrender the instruments that keep it in control. Therefore, any agreement will be only a temporary management tool and not a durable solution. The world would still live under the shadow of a regime that can threaten shipping, intimidate neighbors, and reconstitute power once political realities change in Washington.
The central question is not whether Iran can be nudged into better behavior, but whether the regime itself can be trusted to live within any settlement. It cannot.
Even in the best-case scenario of a deal, Trump controls the regime in a manner similar to Venezuela today. But when a new president takes office, the Iranians will immediately reverse course, knowing that military action is off the table.
The regime cannot be trusted. It lies, cheats, and changes terms. Iran negotiates to buy time, receive tangible gains, and promise concessions it never makes nor enforces. That is why any deal with Iran is a bad deal.
The reported deal means Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz, regardless of whether it exercises that control. Every country will know that Iran can close this critical waterway at any time, holding the world energy supply hostage.
It will be the U.S. that allows this situation, despite having the most lethal military in the world, to remove Iran’s control for good and destroy the regime.
As long as the current regime remains in power, the wider Middle East remains vulnerable to recurring crises. Gaza will continue to suffer, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen will remain failed states, and the Gulf will live with the consequences of an Iranian system that uses militias and missiles to shape politics beyond its borders.
Eliminating that system would not guarantee peace overnight, but it would remove the primary engine of organized destabilization. It would create space for a different regional future, one based on state-to-state cooperation instead of proxy warfare. This is the vision laid out so well in Trump’s first term, in his Peace to Prosperity plan.
The Abraham Accords showed that strategic realignment in the Middle East is possible when security incentives and economic opportunity move in the same direction. Recent reporting shows that Trump has explicitly linked a broader regional settlement to expanding the Accords.
A post-regime Iran could be part of a region defined less by blackmail and war and more by integration and growth. That future is impossible if Tehran’s rulers remain able to sabotage it through armed clients and maritime threats.
TRUMP SAYS NETANYAHU SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR IRAN DEAL: ‘A VERY DIFFICULT GUY’
Despite its unpopular connotations, regime change is the only strategy that matches the scale of the problem. An MOU that postpones enforcement and leaves core capabilities intact simply resets the clock. The better course is to deny the regime the resources, networks, and military assets that make renewed aggression possible, while supporting an alternative political future for the Iranian people.
The choice is between a recurring cycle of crisis under a revolutionary regime and a one-time effort to remove the force that keeps producing it. The president has done a lot so far, but this is his biggest test. Trusting the Iranian regime is a non-starter. Finishing the job can be his legacy.
EJ Kimball is the director of policy and strategic operations at the U.S. Israel Education Association and a foreign policy and national security consultant.