Overview of Can diplomacy avert a US‑Iran war?
This Financial Times Rackman Review episode (host: Andrew England) interviews Salam Vakil, director of the Middle East & North Africa programme at Chatham House, about the heightened US‑Iran confrontation after Iran’s brutal crackdown on nationwide protests. The conversation examines US military pressure, the slim prospects for a quick diplomatic deal, Iran’s internal weaknesses and societal dynamics, regional mediation efforts, the risks of military strikes (including fragmentation and humanitarian fallout), and what would be required to stabilise the situation.
Key topics discussed
- Context: mass protests in Iran (sparked by economic grievances, expanding into anti‑regime demonstrations) and a violent government crackdown with very high reported death tolls.
- US response: President Trump’s public threats, deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group and other forces to the region, and stated aims to force Iran to accept a comprehensive agreement (nuclear curbs, limits on missiles and regional activity).
- Diplomatic channel: short, rapid negotiations are being sought; regional mediators are active to avert conflict.
- Iran’s bargaining position: weakened after recent military setbacks, sanctions, domestic protest, but internally committed to a posture of defiance under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
- Iranian society: young, educated, entrepreneurial, connected to global culture; widespread frustration with economic mismanagement and corruption.
- Regime resilience: strong coercive apparatus (IRGC, Basij, state security), constitutional mechanisms for succession; change in leadership more plausible than outright collapse.
- Opposition and diaspora: figures like Reza Pahlavi have gained visibility, but lack cohesive organisation inside Iran and unity across the diaspora.
- Risks of military action: possible fragmentation, civil conflict, regional spillover, economic disruption and humanitarian consequences; strikes may not produce the intended regime change.
Main takeaways
- Diplomatic prospects are real but narrow: any deal would need to be quick, offer credible guarantees and sanctions relief, and require Iran to accept stringent verification—conditions that Iran is unlikely to accept without major internal pressure.
- Iran is in one of its weakest positions in decades (economic collapse, weakened regional proxies, damaged military assets), but that does not translate into easy regime overthrow because of the state’s coercive capacities and institutional safeguards.
- Regional states (Gulf countries, Turkey, others) are actively mediating to prevent spillover; they fear economic and political fallout from a US‑Iran war.
- A US or Israeli strike risks severe unintended consequences: population displacement, fragmentation along ethnic lines, prolonged low‑intensity conflict, and humanitarian suffering—historical precedents (Iraq, Libya, Syria) inform these fears.
- Protests and unrest are likely to continue: structural economic and political grievances remain unaddressed and the state’s limited policy tools mean recurrent cycles of violence are probable.
Notable insights and figures
- Reported protest casualties: the guest cites more than 6,000 deaths formally confirmed, with independent verifications suggesting up to ~17,000—an extraordinary scale of state violence.
- Iran’s population size referenced as ~90 million; youth demographic, high education levels, diaspora linkages and entrepreneurship are emphasised as sources of societal dynamism.
- The guest stresses a distinction between “regime change” and “change in the regime” — succession or leadership transition is more likely than total collapse while Khamenei is alive.
Possible scenarios and risks
- Quick negotiated deal: unlikely but possible if Iran perceives existential threat and accepts severe constraints plus verification in exchange for sanctions relief and guarantees.
- Targeted strikes without broader plan: likely to strengthen coercive countermeasures, risk large civilian harm, and could consolidate regime survival while degrading Iran’s infrastructure and causing regional instability.
- Gradual erosion: protracted weakening of Iran’s regional capabilities and domestic legitimacy without outright collapse; decentralisation of authority and tighter internal controls.
- Fragmentation/civil conflict: a high‑risk outcome if strikes precipitate loss of state services, ethnic insurgency, or competing power centres.
Policy implications / recommendations (inferred from discussion)
- Prioritise multilateral, fast‑track diplomacy with credible verification and measurable incentives (sanctions relief + economic/investment commitments) to reduce incentives for military action.
- Engage and coordinate with regional mediators (Gulf states, Turkey, others) who are actively trying to de‑escalate and can help guarantee outcomes and manage spillovers.
- Incorporate humanitarian safeguards and contingency planning to mitigate civilian harm if hostilities occur.
- Connect diaspora and inside‑Iran actors where possible to support inclusive, locally guided political alternatives rather than externally imposed regime change.
- Avoid military options that promise regime decapitation without a robust plan for governance, security and humanitarian stabilization afterward.
About the speakers
- Andrew England — Middle East editor, Financial Times (host).
- Salam Vakil — Director, Middle East & North Africa Programme, Chatham House (expert on Iran, Gulf politics, regional security and US foreign policy).
Bottom line
Diplomacy remains the safest—and possibly the only—practical route to avoid an escalatory US‑Iran conflict, but the window for a rapid, acceptable deal is narrow. Iran is weakened yet resilient; regional actors are mobilising to prevent war; and military strikes risk deepening instability and humanitarian catastrophe rather than delivering a tidy political outcome.