With the prospects for diplomacy between the United States and Iran uncertain, it may seem premature to contemplate the postwar future. After all, following the June 17 memorandum of understanding, the war between the two sides escalated again, leaving the document in tatters. Both sides began launching major strikes, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that Iran was once again in a “full-scale war.” On July 27, after a two-week bombing campaign, the Trump administration announced a cease-fire and Iran responded in kind, but a resumption of military hostilities remained high.

But regardless of the course of fighting, the endgame is unlikely to change. According to a new intelligence assessment reported in The Washington Post, Iran is “unlikely to feel significant impact or soften its negotiating position as a result of new rounds of U.S. military strikes.” An unavoidable reality thus confronts the United States and its allies: that they will not topple the Islamic Republic.

Given that the regime will very likely survive the war, the urgent question is what a grand bargain to end the conflict will mean for the future of Iranian politics. A commonly held view is that reaching a new deal will simply entrench the existing hard-line leadership. But this overlooks important dynamics at play inside the country. In fact, a deal would significantly increase the prospects for democracy in Iran. These effects would not be seen immediately or felt in the short term, but under the right circumstances they are likely to appear in the near future. The crucial question, then, becomes how best to set the postwar conditions under which democratic forces have more, rather than less, potential to grow.

It is clear that a diplomatic conclusion of the war with Iran, should it happen, will involve some kind of grand bargain. The broad contours of such a deal will likely approximate the terms outlined in the June memorandum. Of course, getting a deal that sticks will not be easy, and key parts of it will likely be deferred to future negotiations. Low-level hostilities may continue for some time to come. This time around, once a cease-fire is reached, it will be essential to institute a deconfliction mechanism to prevent further rounds of escalation and a return to war.

But the deal will have some provisions that take effect immediately, and so it will affect Iranian politics—and in an overall positive direction. More generally, democratization in Iran is fundamentally incompatible with crippling sanctions and war. The expansion of poverty and economic misery fueled by Western sanctions and the bombing of civilian infrastructure during the war have served to strengthen the state while weakening society. Put simply, it is impossible to mobilize for political change while people are starving and bombs are falling. The idea that impoverishing Iran economically and punishing it militarily will produce a popular uprising was always a fanciful notion. The war has proved that point.

The Islamic Republic faces a crisis of legitimacy. Although the war has produced a surge of nationalism and temporarily reaffirmed the leadership’s legitimacy, the core grievances that produced deep discontent and massive public protests in January remain. This is especially true of Iran’s very large urban youth population. A future Iran that no longer faces war or the threat of war and for which economic misery can no longer be blamed on foreign sanctions will inevitably bring into focus the regime’s accountability for the country’s ills, its extreme disconnect from the will of the people, and its pervasive corruption.

It is impossible to mobilize for political change while people are starving and bombs are falling.

This analysis may come as a surprise for U.S. policymakers, who have long argued that economic strangulation backed by military pressure will create a democratic opening. Much of this misunderstanding reflects the official war rationales offered by Israel and the United States. Both governments have paid lip service to the idea that military intervention can produce regime change. During the 12-day war in June 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Iranian people that Israel was “clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom.” In January, when the country was engulfed in protests, Trump encouraged Iranians to “keep protesting, take over your institutions” and assured them that “help is on the way.” After the 2026 war began, Netanyahu wrote, “We are waging a historic war for liberty,” and Trump told Iranians as the bombs began to fall that “the hour of your freedom is at........

© Foreign Affairs