Iran warns U.S. attack would spark regional war. What’s next for the country? : NPR

TO MARTÍNEZ, HOST:

To find out more about Iran’s future, we called Ali Vaez. He is the director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group. It is an independent organization that works to prevent conflicts and wars. So, Ali, we just heard the mixed signals from President Trump towards Iran, deploying warships on one side, and on the other, telling reporters that Iran was talking seriously with the United States. What effect does this have on the diet?

ALI VAEZ: Well, look, there’s a lot of uncertainty right now, and the regime is – seems prepared for all scenarios. If there is a deal that would meet some of his requirements, he might be willing to make a deal and buy more time. If the United States decides to use military force, it threatens to retaliate disproportionately and harshly.

MARTÍNEZ: However, given what President Trump has done in Venezuela, does that influence the Iranian regime in terms of what Trump might seriously consider doing?

VAEZ: Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the security of the supreme leader now seems to worry the regime much more, since Israel killed Hezbollah leader Nasrallah in Beirut in September 2024, and also during the June war between Iran and Israel, when President Trump even threatened to go after the supreme leader at the time. So there is a security problem. But no, the analogy with Venezuela doesn’t really apply here…

MARTÍNEZ: Okay.

VAEZ: …Because there were contacts between the Trump administration and the Maduro regime, different elements of the Maduro regime, that made it possible to negotiate a kind of transition if the regime was decapitated, so that the rest of his body could survive. There do not appear to be any negotiations in this direction between Iran and the United States at the moment.

MARTÍNEZ: Okay. I only brought it up because I know President Trump brought it up last week when he talked about Iran. So I wonder if he’s thinking: look what I’m capable of if the negotiations don’t go well.

VAEZ: It’s true that the president might feel emboldened by the success he achieved in Venezuela at very little cost to the United States. In fact, there are no American deaths. In this case, I think it’s different. I think the administration realizes that there is no low-cost, high-impact military option in the case of Iran. As I said, the Iranians have come to the conclusion that only if they shed blood will it deter the United States and Israel from continuing to strike their territory. And it is a regime that is cornered and could act recklessly. And I think the administration is aware of that, and that’s why it has hesitated, despite the fact that it has amassed significant military capabilities right next door.

MARTÍNEZ: Okay. Today, Iran’s foreign minister said his country would not negotiate with the United States while it was threatened and that while it would talk about nuclear capabilities, it would not give up its missiles. How do you see this being resolved?

VAEZ: Well, look, what some mediators are recommending now is that Iran and the United States start by tackling the nuclear issue, and then if they reach an agreement, maybe they’ll tackle missiles or Iran’s regional policy or other areas of disagreement. It is difficult for me at this time to understand why the Trump administration would agree to these conditions, as it appears that leaders in Washington believe that Iran is in a historically weak position and therefore there is no reason to make significant concessions to Iran, but the United States can ask for more. Whereas, if you look at it from the Iranian regime’s point of view, the only thing it considers more perilous than another conflict with the United States is to give up conflict with the United States, is to submit to American terms. And that is why it is difficult to be optimistic about the prospects for diplomacy, even though many efforts are being made at the regional level to try to bring the two sides closer together.

MARTÍNEZ: You mentioned that the Trump administration might think that Iran is at its historic weak point. How do you see it? I mean, what do you observe?

VAEZ: Look, Iran is certainly weakened, but it is not weak. These two things are not the same. And this is once again the reason why the president is hesitant. If he thought Iran was weak and an easy pushover, he would have acted sooner. It would have acted without needing to have as many capabilities to defend its own interests and those of American allies in the region. It is therefore not a weak country, but it is certainly a regime which has lost a lot of legitimacy and is on the brink of collapse. The question is whether the United States can engineer some sort of soft landing, whether the military solution would actually breathe new life into the regime, and whether Iran could collapse into some sort of failed state with consequences for the United States in the region and beyond.

MARTÍNEZ: That’s Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group. Thank you very much for your thoughts.

VAEZ: With pleasure.

Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit the terms of use and permissions pages on our website at www.npr.org for more information.

The accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. The text of the transcript may be edited to correct errors or match updates to the audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio recording.