Washington will almost certainly have to compromise on its maximum goals in Iran. But the right deal - one that permanently restricts Tehran's nuclear and missile capabilities - would make the Middle East more secure than regime change or an indefinite military campaign.

That is the argument James F. Jeffrey, a former senior diplomat who served in seven U.S. administrations, makes in Foreign Affairs, "Hvylya" reports. Jeffrey proposes a cease-fire that would end U.S. and Israeli military operations and economic sanctions in exchange for Iran "giving up almost all enrichment capacity and other elements of its remaining nuclear program, as well as accepting strict limits on the number and capability of its missile holdings."

The deal would deliberately correct the failures of the 2015 nuclear agreement. That accord gave Iran official blessing to enrich uranium, imposed limits only for 15 years, and demanded no accountability for what Jeffrey calls Iran's "proven weaponization program." Severe restrictions on enrichment under a new agreement would avoid all three of those flaws.

Jeffrey acknowledges the deal's limitations. Iran would retain its short-range missile and drone capacity, eventually rebuilding its ability to pressure Gulf neighbors. Critics would likely call such terms "too little to justify the huge military effort and risks of the present campaign." But the alternative - protracted war without clear resolution - carries its own costs.

Neither Washington nor Moscow has clearly defined its minimum objectives, Jeffrey writes, and that ambiguity generates pressure to keep fighting for incremental gains. Russia has been unwilling to accept an attainable compromise in Ukraine and has paid a steep price. Jeffrey's central warning is that the Iran war could become the same kind of trap - one where compromise now "would contribute more to the underlying goals of regional stabilization and American credibility" than the alternatives on offer.

Also read: why the Middle East's deeper problems go beyond Iran - and why regime change alone cannot solve them.