The Islamic regime has been pushing for an interim deal, seeking to drag out talks with the US to achieve a deal that would allow it to keep its ballistic missile program, legitimize its nuclear program, and get some degree of relief from US sanctions, according to former British Army intelligence officer Lynette Nusbacher.
One of the architects behind two of the UK’s National Security Strategies – as part of the UK’s National Security Secretariat – Nusbacher spoke to The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
“The whole point of the American concentration of combat power against Iran is to force the [regime] to negotiate a deal… The regime isn’t going to fall in armed conflict with the US, because the US isn’t going to commit a joint force to fight in Iran. Nobody is going to,” she explained. “The US aren’t bluffing: They’d really attack if they felt the Iranians are dragging their feet.”
Nusbacher predicted that, if the United States didn’t believe Tehran was engaging in the talks in good faith, an air attack using B-2 and B-1 aircraft, along with carrier-based aircraft, would be the likely course of action.
She explained that the US’s steps would have to be carefully measured, and that Washington would have to balance the size of the attack to ensure that Tehran didn’t step away from negotiations altogether, or that the Trump administration was domestically accused of starting “another endless war” in the Middle East.
The limited airstrike would likely target Iranian nuclear program sites, regime targets, such as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps buildings and barracks, and the homes or workplaces of senior regime officials.
Since Trump was himself targeted by Iran in an assassination attempt, Nusbacher noted that he would likely see senior officials in the regime as fair game. She stressed that such an attack would also not threaten overturning the current authorities, as air attacks are not an effective tool for regime change.
Nusbacher spoke with the Post after the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) published its analysis that Iran was dragging out talks to give itself time to prepare for the potential conflict.
“Iran would really prefer to carry on rebuilding post-last summer’s unpleasantness [the 12 Day War in June]. They would like to get rid of sanctions, yes, and restore their currency and get clean water and subsidized petrol flowing; but they’re in no hurry to make a deal with anybody about anything,” Nusbacher stressed.
Iran, US to discuss interim deal in Geneva
A senior US official told Axios on Sunday that the US and Iran may discuss an interim deal during the third round of negotiations in Geneva on Thursday, a claim that aligns with statements made by an Iranian official to Reuters.
The senior Iranian official told the news agency that Tehran would consider sending its highly enriched uranium abroad – and diluting the rest – in exchange for the US recognizing Tehran’s right to “peaceful nuclear enrichment” under a deal that would also include lifting economic sanctions, and for the right of US companies to participate as contractors in Iran’s oil and gas industries.
“Within the economic package under negotiation, the United States has also been offered opportunities for serious investment and tangible economic interests in Iran’s oil industry,” the senior Iranian official said.
There are mixed reports on whether the Trump administration would agree to a deal allowing some level of uranium enrichment, especially given that US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff confirmed to Fox News earlier this week that US President Donald Trump’s “redlines” meant enrichment was a “red line” for the US.
Despite the firm stance expressed by Witkoff on Fox News, Axios reported on Sunday that Witkoff and senior advisor Jared Kushner told Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during the second round of talks that the US would be willing to consider “token enrichment” if Iran could prove that its proposal would block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The New York Times also reported that the US was considering a deal that would allow Iran to have a “very limited nuclear enrichment program.”
“The Americans are seeking to negotiate a nuclear agreement. They will let the Iranians claim the ‘right’ to enrich uranium. They will bargain the Iranians down to enriching none; possessing some at a diluted level of enrichment; and accepting some level of monitoring,” Nusbacher predicted.
“The Iranians are willing to draw negotiations out as long as possible, agree to as little as possible – with the weakest monitoring mechanisms possible – and comply with their agreement as little as possible.”
Annika Ganzeveld, the Middle East portfolio manager for the Critical Threats Project – of the American Enterprise Institute – told the Post that “Iran would presumably support an interim deal focused only on the nuclear issue so long as the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium.”
She added that an interim deal “focused only on the nuclear issue would serve Iran’s interests by not forcing Iran to make concessions on its ballistic missile program and support for its proxies and partners up front.”
Ganzeveld further explained: “Iranian officials have floated the idea that they would be willing to discuss non-nuclear issues if a nuclear deal is reached. These statements may be intended to drag out the current talks by leaving the door open for discussions on non-nuclear issues, although Iran remains very unlikely to make concessions regarding its ballistic missile program or support for the Axis of Resistance.”
Witkoff, who is currently leading nuclear negotiations, said on Saturday that Trump was curious as to why Iran has not yet “capitulated” and agreed to curb its nuclear program.
“I don’t want to use the word ‘frustrated’ because he understands he has plenty of alternatives, but he’s curious as to why they haven’t – I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated’ – but why they haven’t capitulated,” Witkoff said during an interview with Fox News.
“Why, under this pressure, with the amount of seapower and naval power over there, why haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We profess we don’t want a weapon, so here’s what we’re prepared to do’? And yet it’s sort of hard to get them to that place.”
Aragchi reacted in a post on X/Twitter, writing, “Curious to know why we do not capitulate? Because we are Iranian.”
Nusbacher said she believed that the military buildup in the region, along with the war rhetoric were just part of an extraordinarily large “game of chicken,” but again asserted that the US would take action if it felt Tehran wasn’t negotiating in good faith.
Nusbacher added that Trump’s main goal is to see a stronger deal than the 2015 nuclear agreement under the Obama administration, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which saw Tehran agree to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile by 98%, limit enrichment levels to 3.67%, and cut its installed centrifuges by two-thirds.
The ISW assessed that the members of the regime may view capitulating to US demands in negotiations as more harmful than a military conflict, so the issue of Tehran’s ballistic missiles has become non-negotiable for the Islamic Republic.
“Any Iranian concessions on its missile program would be viewed internally as the equivalent of losing a war,” ISW claimed, adding that comments by former IRGC commander Mohammad Ali Jafari in October 2025 suggested that Iran deliberately prioritized developing its missile and drone programs over its air and ground forces to counter the superior capabilities of the US and Israel.
Nusbacher said that the US had expressed a willingness to drop the missile issue in exchange for the regime withdrawing support for its proxies in the region.
Even if Tehran fails to wait it out until an advantageous agreement is presented, Nusbacher assessed the regime was more than willing to accept “individual martyrdom” in preserving “Twelver Shi’a theocracy, confident in the belief that there will always be a religious leader capable of exercising vilayat e-faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist).”
Vilayat-e Faqih, part of the foundational structure of the regime, is a Shia political doctrine holding that a qualified Islamic faqih (“jurist”) must hold supreme political and religious authority in the absence of the 12th imam.
Nusbacher explained that the Iranian military doctrine could not be separated from its theological stance, which invades almost every aspect of Tehran’s leadership style.
“The Iranian regime has sustained a cult of martyrdom since the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, in which their cities were blasted by Iraqi missiles and their children were marched to their deaths against Iraqi machine guns,” she recalled.
“The Iranians don’t view the American concentration of combat power as an existential threat to the regime, because [they believe] God will sustain the regime, but they [also] don’t want IRGC targets to be blasted, their nuclear facilities to be pulverized again, or their port facilities to be destroyed.”
Reuters contributed to this report.