Trita Parsi

So their incentive structure is not to play along and accept being hit incrementally.

It is actually to escalate fast in that type of a scenario, despite the fact that they clearly are the weaker party.

The question we have to ask ourselves, how does any of this serve US interests?

Why do we have to do this in the first place?

There can be negotiations.

There are negotiations.

But those negotiations have to be based on a much more realistic understanding of where the Iranians are and where the U.S.

are, not the kind of red lines that have been sold to Trump by the Israelis who are doing this because they want him to go to war.

ED HARRISON If the only red line is no nuclear weapons, there's absolutely a chance of getting a deal because there are plenty of different things that can be done.

For instance, one of the things that were being floated around in the previous negotiations, which is still on the table, is a consortium in which the enrichment still takes place in Iran, but you have several different countries involved in it.

So the Iranians can't do anything on their own.

You could even have American inspectors there.

This, I think, would be a way better deal than what Obama managed to get.

But it is not acceptable to the Israelis because they don't want to have any deal at all.

They want to have complete obliteration of everything, including missiles and other things.

And they're pushing Trump in that direction.

U.S.

interest, however, is in a different place altogether.

If we can get a deal, then not only...

make sure that they have no pathway towards a nuclear weapon, which I think is doable, but also opens up a new relationship.