After the strike: Is the U.S. ready for the diplomatic fallout in Iran?

A military attack that decapitates or delegitimizes the Islamic Republic could be a game-changer throughout the region.

By Michael Rubin, Middle East Forum

Key Points:

While the world focuses on the military possibility of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran, the United States may be unprepared for the diplomatic aftermath and opportunities that could follow.

Historically, major conflicts like the 1991 Gulf War have created new diplomatic openings, such as the Madrid Peace Conference.

An Israeli strike that successfully delegitimizes or collapses the Iranian regime could be a similar game-changer, potentially dismantling Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.”

However, this positive outcome is not guaranteed. Washington must be prepared to manage the fallout, prevent new state patrons from co-opting Iran’s proxies, and capitalize on any opportunity to integrate a post-theocratic Iran into new regional security and economic frameworks.

Is Washington Ready for the Diplomatic Aftermath of a Strike on Iran?

While analysts have long debated both the wisdom and efficacy of military strikes to end Iran’s nuclear program, if not the regime, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations have focused on the diplomatic aftermath of such strikes.

War can be tremendously destructive. Diplomats rightly view it as the failure of diplomacy, yet in their efforts to avert war, too few diplomats acknowledge, let alone plan for, the opportunities war can open.

The 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna helped Europe create a new diplomatic order after years of chaos and conflict following the 1798 French Revolution and Napoleonic wars.

The 1919 Treaty of Versailles created the League of Nations and other international organizations such as the International Labour Office, shifted colonial borders, and established mandates across Africa, the Middle East, and Pacific that in turn hastened the fulfillment of national aspirations for long colonized peoples.

The 1945 Yalta Conference ensured the reestablishment of conquered nations, even as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s concessions to Joseph Stalin condemned millions of people in Eastern Europe to Communist tyranny.

The same pattern applies to the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli situation had been stagnant for decades when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Only Egypt, among Arab states, recognized Israel. Other countries—Jordan, Morocco, and many of the oil-rich Arab states—enjoyed cordial if covert ties to the Jewish state.

The reactionary Arab camp, however, refused to budge from the 1967 Arab League Khartoum Declaration’s “three no’s”: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and the Palestine Liberation Organization itself upheld those principles strictly, rejecting any normalization with Israel.

A military attack that decapitates or delegitimizes the Islamic Republic could be a game-changer throughout the region. Iran is also primed for regime change.

Successive and increasingly frequent nationwide protests have exposed the Islamic Republic as a zombie regime that lacks popular legitimacy.

The U.S. military and a coalition of allies liberated Kuwait in just over 100 hours. The ease and decisiveness with which the United States triumphed against the world’s fifth-largest army sent shockwaves throughout a region.

Even rejectionists reconsidered their positions. Secretary of State James Baker sought to catapult military victory into diplomatic triumph.

The 1991 Madrid Conference was the result: President George H.W. Bush and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev co-chaired the meeting that saw Syria and Israel sit together at a diplomatic forum for the first time.

Israel also sat with a Palestinian team, albeit folded into the Jordanian delegation. While the conference did not result in any peace, it fractured stigmas and ultimately led to the 1993 Oslo Accords.

A military attack that decapitates or delegitimizes the Islamic Republic could be a game-changer throughout the region. Iran is also primed for regime change.

Successive and increasingly frequent nationwide protests have exposed the Islamic Republic as a zombie regime that lacks popular legitimacy.

The ongoing truckers strike—impacting more than 120 towns and cities in 31 provinces parallels the labor action that helped force the shah from power 46 years ago. Iran is primed and ready for change.

The question now is whether the United States is. Over the past year, Israel has shown innovation, capability, and precision that should force new consideration of its ability to achieve its goals.

If the Islamic Republic collapses, is the United States prepared to mop up its “Axis of Resistance” from the remnants of Hezbollah to Iraqi militias like the Badr Corps to the Houthis?

Suppose these terrorist groups and militias suddenly find themselves orphaned by the demise of their greatest patron.

Do the White House and State Department have a plan to prevent potential new patrons like Turkey, Qatar, or Pakistan from emerging?

More importantly, can the United States complete stabilization in the region by bringing a post-Islamic Republic Iran into the Abraham Accords as well as the Islamic Republic’s former allies in Iraq?

After the last bomb drops and missile strikes, there may be unique opportunities. If U.S. authorities are more invested in punditry than preparation, the United States and its allies will not consolidate maximum gains.