Between War and Deterrence: How a Conflict with Iran Might End — and What It Means for Us as a Society

By Dr. Warda Sada

The possibility of a war with Iran is not merely a security issue. It touches on a deeper question: what kind of state do we want to be, and what future do we want for our children — a future defined by perpetual conflict, or one guided by a courageous pursuit of resolution?

When examining potential ways to end a conflict with Iran, it is important to understand that this is not an abstract chess game between armies, but a clash of political interests — which do not always align with the interests of citizens.

Political Interests vs. Civic Interests

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views Iran’s nuclear program as a central strategic threat. This perception has shaped his policy for many years. For him, demonstrating military strength may be seen as a security necessity — but also, and perhaps primarily, as a move that reinforces his leadership image during times of crisis.

In the United States, even when presidents — like Donald Trump — seek to project power and deterrence, they operate under a clear constraint: the American public is weary of prolonged wars in the Middle East. Economic costs, energy prices, and domestic political pressure set limits on escalation.

In Iran, the decisive power rests with the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, or his potential successor. The Iranian regime seeks to maintain internal stability and its regional standing. A response that is too weak may be perceived as vulnerability; an overly aggressive response may endanger the regime’s very survival.

Each side acts based on a calculation of power — but it is the citizens who bear the cost.

Possible Endgame Scenarios

1. Limited Escalation and Return to DeterrenceSmall exchanges of strikes, quiet mediation (usually through regional countries), and a return to a tense deterrence. This is not peace — merely a postponement of the next round.

2. Renewed Political AgreementA return to an arrangement similar to the 2015 JCPOA, with oversight of the nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. This requires mutual recognition that military force is not a long-term solution.

3. Wider Regional DeteriorationInvolvement of regional proxies, damage to civilian infrastructure, and rising energy prices. Wars of this type rarely conclude with moral clarity — they result in human exhaustion.

4. Regime ChangeAn attempt to overthrow the Iranian regime could trigger regional chaos, as illustrated by Iraq after 2003.

The Ethical Question: Security Through Force Alone?

Security is not only about preventing threats; it is also about creating horizons for the future.When a society lives for years under a sense of siege, it can lose the ability to imagine alternatives. Yet the absence of political imagination is not fate — it is the result of leadership choices.

A Call to Civic Action

To make an impact, we must not remain passive participants in the escalation race. Each of us can:

• Demand that leaders clarify the objectives of war and the human cost involved.

• Promote critical public discourse on foreign and security policy, even when it is difficult.

• Support peace initiatives, diplomacy, and regional arrangements, not just military deterrence.

• Use our voices in elections and civic engagement to favor leadership that seeks real solutions, not just power.

Our democracy is a tool, and the responsibility rests with us: not merely to survive day-to-day, but to imagine and fight for a future where our lives — and the lives of all citizens in the region — take precedence over cold calculations of power.