JERUSALEM (TNS) — While many are applauding President Donald Trump’s bold conduct in striking Iran’s nuclear arsenal, one wonders if there can really be a shortcut between the present situation and the desired political end: peace in the Middle East.,

The past gives us pause and reminds us to consider what the end game is for Trump and the U.S., and to try to avoid the unfortunate necessity of a bloody attempt by each side to make its point.

It reminds me of June 1967, when we destroyed the Arab air forces in one swift blow. When I and my Israeli Air Force comrades were able to get out of our airbase on our first leave, we were pulled out of our vehicle and carried on the shoulders of a jubilant crowd.

Except that our Arab enemies didn’t surrender.

Recuperating from their defeat, they launched the War of Attrition against us, and subsequently the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which, eventually, led to the 1978-1979 Camp David Accords and the peace between Israel and Egypt.

It seems, then, that enemies have to go through a difficult process of fiercely trying to pursue their goals until the bitter reality forces them to compromise.

Unfortunately, reason prevails only after a lot of blood has been shed. The horrific Hamas attacks on Israel in Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel’s retaliation in Gaza are examples of that truth.

Every war has to serve a political end, and that end is a peace which is better than the one which had existed before the war.

In the current conflict with Iran, Israel, while aiming at destroying as much as possible of Iran’s nuclear project and missile launching capabilities, wasn’t entirely clear about the kind of political goals it had been pursuing, which led it to waver and even muse about a regime change in Iran.

The U.S., on the contrary, was clear: Surrender unconditionally, President Trump said to the Iranians. Come back to the table to negotiate a deal by which you won’t have any nuclear program. In case you don’t understand, we are sending bombs, with more to come if you dare to retaliate.

It seems unlikely that the proud Iranians, after insisting they wouldn’t negotiate under threat and vowing to retaliate if attacked by the U.S., would simply do nothing and come back subdued to the negotiating table.

America, on the other hand, given Trump’s bravado, would find it hard not to hit back if Iran attacks its assets.

So are we doomed to see this tragic scenario materialize? Not if both sides think outside the box.

Here’s an idea: The Iranians, knowing perfectly well that an all-out attack on American assets might cause the fall of their regime, could consider carrying out a symbolic attack, declaring victory and coming back to the table, while saving face.

Then Trump should swallow his pride and ego, strike back moderately and declare himself the greatest peacemaker ever.

This might lead to a better nuclear deal with Iran, the end of war in Gaza and the possibility of the greater deal Trump envisions: Peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the Nobel Peace Prize.

(Uri Dromi was the spokesman for the Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres governments from 1992-96.)