[Salon] Israeli analyst Danny Citrinowizc: A return to miliary confrontation makes a diplomatic agreement less likely

[Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>]

Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش

@citrinowicz

Neither threats nor a U.S. military strike are likely to move Iran from its current position, especially when Tehran views Washington as inconsistent and unreliable in its commitments. A return to a broader military confrontation would make a diplomatic agreement less likely, not more. From the Iranian perspective, recent actions in the maritime domain are already being interpreted as violations of the ceasefire framework. One can certainly be frustrated with Iran's position. But if the objective was to reach an agreement, it would have been wiser to keep alive figures such as Ali Khamenei, the ultimate decision-maker, and Ali Larijani, who historically played an important role in bridging gaps between the parties. If the purpose was to topple the regime, why negotiating with them? The current situation is the direct result of profound mistrust on both sides, combined with a growing recognition that the status quo is unsustainable. Without an agreement in the near future, further escalation is likely. Yet escalation by itself is unlikely to produce meaningful Iranian concessions. The bottom line is that no military operation, whether limited or extensive, short or prolonged, is likely to compel Iran to accept a deal in the US terms. More likely, an Iranian response would push the parties even further away from diplomacy. That is the reality facing the administration today. If President Trump genuinely wants a deal, he will have to engage with at least some of Iran's core demands. If he is unwilling to do so, then he should be prepared for a prolonged confrontation rather than a negotiated settlement. #IranWar‌

Barak Ravid

@BarakRavid

6h

🇺🇸🇮🇷Behind the scenes: Trump boils over after Tehran kept him waiting. My story on @axios axios.com/2026/06/10/tru…

8:19 PM · Jun 10, 202648.7KViews