Order Josh Hammer’s new book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West: HERE.

There is a certain ritual quality to American diplomacy with the Islamic Republic of Iran: the urgent shuttle talks, the carefully worded leaks, the chorus of “this time is different.” And here we are again, in the uneasy aftermath (or at least intermission) of Operation Epic Fury, watching Washington and Tehran grope in Islamabad for an off-ramp to avoid further conflict. It’s as if the 47-year-long road behind us wasn’t paved with taqiyya, bloodshed, and failed agreements galore.

It’s true that full-scale regime change has not been a stated objective of the Trump administration since President Trump launched Epic Fury. And that’s fine. The goal is not to plant the Stars and Stripes in Tehran or to remake Persian society in the image of Jeffersonian democracy. The goal is narrower, harder, and far more realistic: to deter, degrade, and military neutralize a hostile regime that has spent the better part of half a century financing terrorism, destabilizing its neighbors, and inching toward apocalyptic nuclear capability.

But if the formal end of Tehran’s Islamist mullahcracy is not an explicit aim, that does not mean Epic Fury was undertaken lightly. Quite the opposite. The use of American military force always demands clarity of purpose and outcome. This week’s second round of American-Iranian negotiations in Pakistan are thus not merely fraught, but perilous. There is severe downside risk if the American negotiating team does not hold the line—assuming, of course, that the negotiations even take place.

Here, then, are the four bare-minimum requirements of any new deal with the mullahs potentially inked in Islamabad this week by Vice President JD Vance and his negotiating team.

First, Iran must end, fully and verifiably, its financing and arming of terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East. This decades-long funding of regional jihadist armies has long been a distinguishing feature of the Islamic Republic. From militias in Iraq to Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen to Hamas in Gaza and beyond, Tehran built a terrorist empire. Any deal that allows even a trickle of this funding to continue is just a down payment for future conflict. We have seen this movie before, and it ends with American soldiers and allies paying the price.

Second, the Strait of Hormuz must be permanently open to free maritime transit. This is less a core interest for America, which is now a net energy exporter, than it is for the rest of the world. Roughly a fifth of global oil flows through that tight corridor, a mere 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. Iran’s repeated acts of national piracy choking off the passage constitute economic blackmail against the entire international energy system. If Tehran is to avoid a renewed American military campaign, it must forever relinquish the ability to hold global energy markets hostage.

Third, Iran must dismantle—or turn over—its offensive drones and ballistic missiles. Iran’s missiles and drones are instruments of both projection and intimidation—both death and destruction. They are designed to extend the mullahs’ lethal reach far beyond Iranian borders. Just since the present war began, Iran has lashed out with lethal missiles and drones not merely at Israel, but at 10 other Muslim-majority nations. Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal famously left Iran’s ballistic missile program untouched, and any new deal must not repeat that tragic mistake. To do so would be to invite a rapid return to the pre-Epic Fury status quo ante.

Fourth—and perhaps most critically—Iran must surrender every ounce of enriched uranium. Not cap it. Not dilute it temporarily. Not kick the can down the road by only limiting enrichment for the next decade. Not place it under a convoluted monitoring regime that depends on the goodwill of corrupt, incompetent “international community” inspectors. Surrender it, completely. The world has spent years playing semantic games over uranium enrichment levels and breakout times, while Tehran has mastered the art of inching forward just below the threshold of consequence. It’s taqiyya at its finest. It must finally end.

These are the bare-minimum conditions for any new deal. If the mullahs—or whoever, exactly, purports to represent Iran at this time—don’t budge on these items in Pakistan, then let the bombings commence. Heck, let them intensify, for that matter. Otherwise, it was folly to initiate a fiery military operation like Epic Fury in the first place. What was the point?

The administration now faces a stark choice. It can hold the line—insisting that any agreement meet these basic conditions and walking away if it does not—or it can accept a diluted deal in the name of de-escalation, hoping that this time, somehow, will be different.

But hope is not a strategy. It never has been.

If the conditions cannot be met, and if enforcement cannot be guaranteed, then the conclusion is unavoidable: The deal must be rejected, and the bombings must continue. Not because war is preferable, but because a bad peace, built on illusion and naivete, is often the prelude to a more dangerous conflict.

America’s national credibility is now on the line. The question is whether the United States has the clarity and resolve to see the mission through and secure real gains for the American people and the American way of life—whether that means more deals or more bombs.