Trump’s ‘Oslo Doctrine’ for Iran: Leaving the Regime, Taking the Teeth

For decades, the debate over Iran has been binary: either "containment" (which many argue led to the nuclear threshold) or "regime change" (a messy, unpredictable endeavor). However, as Donald Trump navigates his latest standoff with Tehran, a third path is emerging.

It is a strategy that mirrors a controversial chapter of Israeli history. Call it America’s "Oslo Doctrine."

The Logic: Neutralization Over Annihilation

The core of the Oslo Accords, as seen by its proponents at the time, was the attempt to live alongside a hostile entity (the PLO) by "managing" the threat. Trump appears to be applying a high-stakes version of this to the Islamic Republic.

The argument is simple: The regime itself is a cancer, but the immediate existential threat is the "cells" it produces, the nuclear program and the ballistic missile arrays.

Trump’s message to Khamenei is a brutal binary choice:

Critics argue that leaving the regime alive is a fundamental error. As long as the head of the snake remains, it will eventually grow new fangs. However, Trump’s logic seems to be rooted in a "cost-benefit" analysis for the American voter. He wants to end the threat to the West without committing to a "forever war" or the chaos of a power vacuum in Tehran.

By focusing on assets over leadership (initially), he places the burden of escalation entirely on the Iranians. He is saying: “I don’t need to occupy your country; I just need to make sure you can’t hit mine.”

The "smart" part of this move, is the "if-then" clause. By making it clear that the survival of the regime is contingent on their silence after their nuclear sites are hit, Trump creates a paralyzing dilemma for the IRGC. If they seriously respond to a strike on their nuclear facilities, they sign their own death warrants. If they don't, they stay in power but lose their primary tool of regional blackmail. It is a strategy of strategic humiliation.

For this "Oslo Doctrine" to truly succeed where the original failed, Trump must ensure that "disarmament" isn't the end of the story. The military neutralization must be coupled with a relentless economic siege.

The goal isn't just a "non-nuclear Iran," but an Iran so weakened by the loss of its strategic assets and its financial lifeblood that the regime eventually withers from within.

Trump is entering a new round of talks and tensions with a clear ultimatum. He isn't asking for a change of heart; he is demanding a change of hardware. By leaving the regime an "out" (survival in exchange for disarmament), he is attempting to win the war without firing the shot that starts a third World War.

It is a high-wire act. If it works, he neutralizes the greatest threat to Israel and the West. If it fails, he leaves a wounded, vengeful regime with nothing left to lose.

Oslo as you all know Failed.