Three Vital Guarantees, the Islamic Republic’s Deadlock, and the Imperative for a Legitimate National Coalition

In recent days, growing political, security, and diplomatic signals point to a high likelihood of U.S. military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, reducing the current situation to the narrow question of whether a strike will occur is an analytical mistake. What is unfolding goes far beyond a potential military decision. It reflects a clear and coherent strategic objective pursued by the United States and its allies—an objective that is independent of the specific tools employed, military or otherwise: securing vital guarantees to resolve Iran’s crisis and redefine its political future.

The current pressure on the Islamic Republic is neither episodic nor emotional. It is the cumulative result of decades of crisis production by the ruling system across three critical dimensions: the nuclear threat, regional destabilization, and the complete blockage of internal political transformation. The international community has now reached a clear conclusion: without addressing all three of these crises simultaneously, no sustainable scenario for Iran—or for international security—can be envisioned.

The first vital guarantee concerns Iran’s nuclear file. This dossier is no longer viewed as a technical issue, nor as one that can be resolved through incremental negotiations. The international expectation is now explicit and non-negotiable: the full disposition of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles, including approximately 400 kilograms currently in existence; the removal or neutralization of this material; and the acknowledgment of the failure of the nuclear strategy itself. The Islamic Republic has defined its nuclear program not as an energy project, but as a survival tool and an instrument of coercion. For this reason, any genuine retreat on the nuclear front would amount to the collapse of the regime’s core logic of power.

The second vital guarantee relates to the Islamic Republic’s missile program and regional posture. The export of crisis through missile capabilities and proxy networks has turned the Middle East into one of the most unstable regions in the world, with direct consequences for European security and the broader international order. The global community is no longer willing to accept vague assurances or informal understandings. What is now demanded are clear, enforceable, and verifiable guarantees: an end to the regime’s aggressive regional doctrine, a fundamental redefinition of its missile program, and the cessation of support for transnational armed actors.

The third guarantee—arguably the most complex and decisive—concerns Iran’s political future after the Islamic Republic. The central question now posed internationally is straightforward: what comes next? Past experience has demonstrated that power transitions without a clear political horizon do not lead to stability, but instead reproduce cycles of crisis and authoritarianism. A credible answer must therefore include a precise roadmap for an internally driven political transition, a fundamental rewriting of the constitution, and the establishment of a pluralistic, non-ideological political process that genuinely reflects Iran’s social, political, and cultural diversity, while enabling the country to exit its historic deadlock with maximum stability.

Taken together, these three demands strike directly at the pillars of the Islamic Republic’s survival. The nuclear program functions as a bargaining and survival mechanism; missile power as a tool of intimidation and expansion; and political closure as a means of societal control. Accepting these conditions simultaneously would not reform the system—it would end it as a structure of power. Accordingly, any expectation of a final agreement, normalization of relations, or internal reform is less a realistic analysis than a dangerous illusion and a denial of reality.

This illusion has collapsed even further in the aftermath of the recent massacre. The world has entered a phase in which normalizing relations with a regime responsible for mass repression and systematic crimes is neither morally acceptable nor politically defensible. The question today is no longer whether the Islamic Republic will collapse, but which force will be capable of filling the vacuum created by that collapse.

At this point, the deadlock of the traditional exile opposition becomes unmistakable. In their current form, these groups lack political cohesion, broad domestic legitimacy, and the executive capacity required to manage a complex transition. Without a real social base inside Iran, no actor can credibly assume responsibility for delivering security and political guarantees, earning international trust, or managing a power vacuum. Legitimacy cannot be imported, nor can it be constructed through symbolic external endorsements. None of these groups has succeeded in presenting to the world a genuinely inclusive, pluralistic structure with operational and organic links to actors inside the country capable of stabilizing a transition.

Under these conditions, the only realistic and rational scenario is the emergence of a new national coalition—one that is not an exile project or an externally driven construct, but a force rooted in Iranian society itself. Such a coalition must derive its legitimacy from genuine popular support, represent Iran’s political, ethnic, and social diversity, and engage the international community from a position of strength. Only under these conditions can all three vital guarantees be credibly delivered simultaneously.

The core of this scenario is popular legitimacy. Without it, no security or political guarantee will endure, and no successful transition can take place. The Islamic Republic continues to cling to hopes of normalization, but such hopes no longer correspond to geopolitical reality. The era of appeasement and normalization has come to an end.

The fundamental question today is who can represent Iran’s future—how, and with what legitimacy. The answer lies neither in the past nor in exhausted opposition frameworks, but in the construction of a nationally rooted, internally based, responsible, and future-oriented alternative—one capable of guiding Iran out of its current crisis and restoring it to its rightful place in the global order.

At a moment when evidence of U.S. preparations for military action against the Islamic Republic is mounting, this scenario—the emergence of a legitimate, internally grounded national coalition—represents the most probable path forward to manage collapse, prevent chaos, and shape Iran’s political future. Achieving it, however, requires sustained and lethal international pressure on the Islamic Republic.