- +6
Yasmine Farouk, Nathan J. Brown, Maysaa Shuja Al-Deen, …
{
"authors": [
"Michele Dunne"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Iran and the United States: This Is the Moment to Step Back
After deadly drone attacks, there is still an opportunity for the United States and Iran to take an off-ramp rather than escalate further. History suggests they would be wise to do so.
By assassinating Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani as well as Iraqi deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the United States has significantly upped the ante in what was already a dangerous game with Iran. Chafing under strong pressure from U.S. sanctions, Iran and its proxies have taken increasingly provocative steps over the last few months: attacking Saudi oil production, military facilities with U.S. personnel, and most recently the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Can the momentum be halted or reversed just as it is on the verge of spinning out of control?
Diplomacy Deferred
In several Middle East military conflicts—particularly in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen—there were moments early on when conflict might have been defused by deft U.S. diplomacy. Yet those opportunities weren’t seized, and not one of those wars has ended in a decisive manner that allowed a victor to impose peace terms. Each conflict has slowly, painfully returned to diplomacy to resolve underlying issues, and on terms that do not differ significantly from what might have been negotiated before thousands of lives were lost. Any war between the United States and Iran would be far more complicated than the others, most likely dragging in regional allies and involving asymmetric warfare around the globe.
A Small Window of Opportunity
The moment for diplomacy to avert a disastrous conflict between the United States and Iran is within the next few days. This is not a question of compromising with terrorists or of making concessions in response to brutality. It is in both U.S. and Iranian interests to preserve the option of diplomacy to resolve the outstanding issues (Iran’s regional interventions and nuclear program, U.S. sanctions) before tragedy ensues. Any strategic calculation that one side’s hand would be significantly stronger after a conflict—for example, the idea in Washington that the Iranian regime might collapse—is most likely incorrect, and in any case, it underestimates the likely costs.
Who Can Help to De-Escalate?
European allies—particularly France, Germany, and Switzerland—and some of the more independent parties in the Gulf, such as Oman, have the best relations with both sides and strongest motivations to avert conflict. They should become active, and receive a fair hearing in Washington and Tehran, in what could be only a brief period before Iran regroups to exact its revenge.
About the Author
Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program
Michele Dunne was a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where her research focuses on political and economic change in Arab countries, particularly Egypt, as well as U.S. policy in the Middle East.
- Islamic Institutions in Arab States: Mapping the Dynamics of Control, Co-option, and ContentionResearch
- From Hardware to Holism: Rebalancing America’s Security Engagement With Arab StatesResearch
- +8
Robert Springborg, Emile Hokayem, Becca Wasser, …
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?Commentary
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Europe’s Self-Confidence ProblemCommentary
The EU’s responses to two recent incidents expose the gulf between European perceptions and capabilities. Unless the union can bridge that gap, it will never become a real geostrategic power.
Rym Momtaz
- Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories as Geopolitical AssetsArticle
European states control several Overseas Countries and Territories around the world that carry strategic, economic, and environmental weight. As great powers challenge the rules-based order, defending them is a geopolitical imperative for Europe.
Marc Pierini
- Why MAGA’s Far-Right European Ties Will EndureCommentary
In supporting Europe’s far-right, MAGA and Russia both want the same thing: a weaker EU. Europe must defend itself without abandoning the openness these forces exploit.
Armida van Rij
- Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step BackCommentary
As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.
Rym Momtaz