Duvi Honig is Founder & CEO, Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce
On Tuesday, during an interview with Fox News, President Donald Trump warned that unless Iran returned to the negotiating table to negotiate another agreement, the United States could strike the regime's power plants, bridges, and other critical infrastructure.
I read the headline twice.
Then I watched the interview.
And I found myself asking a question that, I suspect, millions of Americans, Israelis, and others around the world are asking as well.
Another deal?
Mr. President, with all due respect...
Is this a joke?
What exactly is the deal we're trying to make?
Didn't we already have deals?
Didn't we already have negotiations, memorandums, understandings, diplomatic breakthroughs, signing ceremonies, and photographs of world leaders proudly displaying signed agreements?
How many times do we have to repeat the same process before admitting that the process itself is fundamentally broken?
That is what shocks me most-not the military threat, but the fact that after everything the world has witnessed, another negotiation is still being presented as though it is a serious solution.
For more than four decades, Iran's revolutionary regime has defined itself through hostility toward the United States, open calls for Israel's destruction, support for terrorist organizations across the Middle East, and an unwavering commitment to expanding its regional influence.
Throughout those decades, diplomacy has repeatedly been attempted.
Sanctions have been imposed.
Sanctions have been lifted.
Negotiations have begun.
Negotiations have collapsed.
New agreements have been announced.
New understandings have been celebrated.
Each time, many hoped the latest agreement would finally change the direction of history.
Yet today we are still discussing the same threats - or ones that are worse.
That alone should tell us something.
Mr. President, I ask respectfully: what exactly has changed?
Has Iran abandoned its revolutionary ideology?
Has it recognized Israel's right to exist?
Has it stopped funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and other armed proxy groups?
Has it abandoned its nuclear ambitions?
Has it stopped threatening the United States?
The answer is obvious. Nothing fundamental has changed.
That is why I cannot understand why the objective once again appears to be bringing Iran back to another negotiating table.
Negotiate toward what?
Another memorandum? Another agreement? Another handshake? Another signing ceremony?
Another carefully choreographed photograph that creates the appearance of progress while leaving the underlying threat unresolved?
If all we are seeking is another document with signatures on it, artificial intelligence could produce one in seconds.
ChatGPT could generate a remarkably convincing image of world leaders smiling, shaking hands, and celebrating a historic breakthrough.
It would look authentic. It might even become a viral image across social media.
But it would not dismantle a single centrifuge.
It would not stop a single missile.
It would not weaken Hezbollah.
It would not disarm Hamas.
It would not save one American soldier.
It would not save one Israeli child.
Because the problem has never been a shortage of agreements. The problem has always been believing that a signed piece of paper can fundamentally change the ideology of the regime signing it. That this regime would honor it.
History teaches a painful lesson.
Agreements are meaningful only when both parties ultimately seek peace.
When one side views negotiations as a tactical tool rather than a permanent commitment, diplomacy alone cannot guarantee security.
That is why so many people reacted with disbelief when they heard that another agreement was once again being discussed.
The issue is not whether diplomacy is desirable.
Of course peace is preferable to war. Every civilized nation should exhaust every reasonable opportunity to avoid conflict.
The issue is whether repeated experience should influence future policy.
Surely history matters.
Surely experience matters.
Surely the lessons of decades cannot simply be ignored because another negotiation sounds more appealing than confronting difficult realities.
Which brings me to another question.
What exactly is the threat?
Iran is told that unless it negotiates, America may target its infrastructure.
But if the objective of that pressure is simply another negotiation, then what has truly changed?
Pressure should exist to eliminate a threat-not merely to postpone it.
The free world has already invested decades pursuing agreements that promised stability. Today, those same concerns remain.
Mr. President, strength is not measured by the number of agreements a nation signs.
Strength is measured by whether future generations are actually safer because of those agreements.
Respectfully, there comes a point when difficult questions deserve honest answers.
If previous agreements failed to produce lasting security, why should another agreement suddenly succeed?
If history repeatedly demonstrates the same outcome, why do we continue expecting a different result?
There comes a time when leaders must recognize that some regimes negotiate because they seek peace, while others negotiate because they seek time.
Many observers believe Iran has repeatedly demonstrated which category it belongs to.
Mr. President, respectfully, there is no deal left to make. That chapter has already been written. History has already delivered its verdict.
The question before us is no longer whether Iran will sign another document.
The real question is whether the free world has finally learned that lasting security cannot rest on another signature, another handshake, or another ceremony-but on confronting the threat itself before history repeats once again.