Keane issues warning: This will empower Iran
Keane issues warning: This will empower Iran
Keane Warns Iran Deal Could Strengthen Tehran as Trump Weighs Next Move
President Trump remained at the White House over Memorial Day weekend as his national security team weighed whether to resume military strikes against Iran or give diplomacy more time to produce a deal. The moment has become one of the most consequential tests of his presidency: whether to accept a negotiated framework that could reopen the Strait of Hormuz and limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or return to combat operations aimed at further weakening the Islamic regime.
The tension comes as Iran reportedly reviews the latest American-backed peace proposal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking after NATO meetings in Sweden and during a visit to India, said there had been “slight progress” and suggested the administration could have something to announce within days. But Rubio also repeated Trump’s core demands: Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, the Strait of Hormuz must reopen without tolls, and Tehran must turn over its highly enriched uranium.
“This problem will be solved,” Rubio said, making clear that diplomacy remains the preferred route, but not the only one.
For countries across the Gulf, the stakes are immediate. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has already caused economic pain, particularly for workers along Iran’s southern coast and throughout the region’s shipping economy. One Iranian resident described the pressure as devastating, saying dock workers had been left nearly unemployed and that reopening the strait would bring badly needed relief.
Gulf governments appear to be pressing hard for a diplomatic outcome. Leaders in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recently urged Trump to delay a planned military operation in order to allow negotiations to continue. Trump agreed to the pause, reflecting his desire to avoid a wider regional conflict if a credible agreement can be reached.
But patience in Washington may be wearing thin.
A Pakistani delegation, including the country’s army chief, has arrived in Tehran for talks with Iran’s foreign minister and parliamentary speaker. Pakistan has emerged as a key intermediary, working to help broker a cease-fire arrangement between the United States and Iran. At the same time, Iranian state media has claimed that Iran’s armed forces have been rebuilt during the cease-fire, a statement likely to deepen skepticism among American hawks who believe Tehran is using negotiations to buy time.
Retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News senior strategic analyst, said he does not know whether a deal is truly close. He warned that similar optimistic signals have appeared repeatedly during the six-week cease-fire, only to collapse when the details became serious.
“We’ve been hearing them for six weeks,” Keane said of the latest diplomatic statements. In his view, Iran has followed a familiar pattern: suggest concessions, draw out negotiations, then refuse to make the commitments necessary for an acceptable agreement.
Keane argued that the United States should avoid making a deal and return instead to combat operations. His reasoning rests on three central warnings.
First, he said, any deal would empower Iran by allowing the regime to survive intact. Though Tehran has been bruised and weakened, Keane warned that a negotiated settlement would let Iranian leaders claim they had stared down the world’s most powerful military and economic superpower. That, he said, would embolden them at home and across the region.
Second, he argued that any agreement would almost certainly require financial relief, including sanctions relief or the release of frozen assets. That money, Keane said, would allow the regime to recover, rebuild and continue ruling. In his view, the original purpose of the U.S. campaign was to weaken the regime so severely that it would become vulnerable to pressure from its own people. A deal, he said, would take that outcome “off the table.”
Third, Keane questioned whether Iran would honor any agreement it signed. He warned that Tehran could accept the terms publicly while cheating, obscuring its activities, rebuilding ballistic missile capabilities, supporting proxies and covertly reviving nuclear work.
Those concerns reflect a long-standing debate in Washington. Supporters of diplomacy argue that an enforceable agreement could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without plunging the United States into a deeper war. Critics argue that Tehran has a history of evasion and that sanctions relief could simply finance the next phase of Iranian aggression.
For Keane, the choice is clear. He believes the United States should “finish what we started” and resume operations for what he described as a remaining campaign of several weeks. He said American intelligence has improved dramatically during the cease-fire, giving the military better visibility into Iran’s remaining military and economic targets.
According to Keane, the United States has the capability to strike Iran’s revenue sources, military infrastructure and regime-supporting institutions. The goal, he said, would not be direct regime change imposed by American troops, but rather to weaken Tehran so completely that it could no longer sustain itself or suppress domestic resistance.
“We never said it would produce regime change,” Keane said. “We did say it would so weaken the regime that it would be vulnerable to its people.”
That distinction is important. Keane is not calling for an Iraq-style occupation or a large American ground war. Instead, he is advocating a sustained military and economic pressure campaign designed to strip the regime of the tools it uses to survive: revenue, weapons, coercive security forces and regional leverage.
He also said the United States should work with intelligence partners, including the CIA and Mossad, to undermine the regime and support Iranian resistance efforts while Tehran is under maximum pressure.
Keane’s view aligns with a recent Wall Street Journal editorial urging Trump to “finish the job” in Iran and “free the world from this hideous regime.” The editorial praised Trump for pushing the ayatollahs to the brink and argued that now is the time to complete the campaign.
But the path Keane favors carries significant risks. Renewed strikes could provoke Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces, embassies, Gulf energy infrastructure or commercial shipping. Iran could also activate proxy groups across the region. Even if the U.S. campaign remains limited, conflict in the Strait of Hormuz could send oil prices higher and unsettle global markets.
That is precisely why Gulf countries are urging caution. They are geographically exposed, economically vulnerable and likely to absorb the first wave of Iranian retaliation if the conflict widens. From their perspective, a diplomatic settlement that reopens the strait and lowers tensions may be preferable to a renewed war, even if the deal is imperfect.
A presidential adviser in the UAE reportedly described the chances of a U.S.-Iran agreement as roughly even, saying Iran has often overestimated the strength of its hand. That assessment captures the current uncertainty. Tehran may believe it can extract concessions by delaying. Washington may believe the military threat will force Tehran to compromise. Both sides may be misreading the other.
The Strait of Hormuz remains the most urgent flashpoint. Rubio has said it must be opened without tolls, rejecting any Iranian effort to control or monetize passage through one of the world’s most important energy corridors. Keane went further, arguing that the United States must physically take back the strait from Iran if necessary.
If Iran is allowed to threaten closure again, Keane warned, it will use the waterway as leverage against U.S. allies and partners in the future. That, he said, is another reason a deal could empower Tehran rather than restrain it.
The nuclear issue is equally central. Rubio has insisted that Iran must turn over its highly enriched uranium and address enrichment itself. Trump has repeatedly said Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. The unresolved question is whether the emerging proposal contains specific, enforceable commitments — or merely broad promises to continue talks.
That distinction will determine how the deal is received in Washington.
If the agreement requires Iran to surrender enriched uranium, accept strict inspections, halt enrichment and reopen Hormuz without conditions, Trump could present it as a victory achieved through strength. If the deal leaves key details for later while granting Tehran financial relief now, critics will argue that it rewards Iranian defiance and repeats the mistakes of earlier nuclear diplomacy.
Keane clearly fears the latter. He believes even a signed document would not guarantee compliance and that the regime would use any money it receives to rebuild its power.
The debate now facing Trump is not simply about Iran. It is about the lessons of American power after decades of Middle East conflict. One side believes the United States must avoid open-ended wars and use military pressure to secure negotiated outcomes. The other believes that stopping short now would leave a dangerous regime alive, funded and emboldened.
Trump has tried to occupy both positions. He has shown willingness to use force, but he has also emphasized his desire to avoid endless wars. He has delayed strikes at the request of regional leaders, but his administration continues to warn that the problem will be solved “one way or the other.”
That phrase is now the center of American policy toward Iran. It leaves room for diplomacy, but also for war.
For the people of Iran, the consequences are stark. Economic pressure from the closure of the strait is already hurting ordinary workers. A renewed U.S. campaign would likely deepen that suffering, even if its stated goal is to weaken the regime rather than the population. Yet a deal that stabilizes the regime could also leave Iranians under the same hard-line rulers for years to come.
For American allies in the region, the choice is equally difficult. They want Iran contained, but they also want the Gulf calm. They want the strait open, but they fear missile strikes and sabotage. They want U.S. leadership, but not a regional firestorm.
Trump’s decision may come down to whether he believes Iran is truly prepared to make concessions. Rubio’s comments suggest there is still a chance. Keane’s warning suggests that chance may be an illusion.
The next few days could decide whether the cease-fire becomes a pathway to a larger agreement or merely a pause before another round of strikes. If Iran accepts strict terms, diplomacy may prevail. If it stalls, rejects the core demands or insists on keeping leverage over the strait and its nuclear program, the White House may conclude that the time for waiting has run out.
For now, the president is at the White House, the region is watching, and the American military option remains very much alive.
