ASPEN, Colo. — Speaking on a panel at the Aspen Security Forum, a group of Iran analysts discussed the potential paths forward in nuclear talks with Iran after the American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the possibility that Iran will attempt to reconstitute its nuclear program covertly and the prospect of regime change in Iran.

Former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley laid out three paths forward after the strikes: a continued campaign of Israeli air strikes to “mow the lawn,” while Iran works to try to re-establish its own deterrence; a negotiated agreement with Iran including intrusive inspections that would make it difficult for Iran to construct a covert nuclear program, with provisions addressing Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxies; and the possibility, with an agreement, that Iran decides to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, having spent billions of dollars on the program, alienated the region and still failed to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack.

“There is a question whether the Iranians will decide that the cost of pursuing a nuclear program was just too high,” Hadley said. “It was supposed to safeguard them from getting attacked by the Israelis in the United States, and it resulted in them getting attacked. … That’s a long way down the road. It’s probably a low-likelihood probability, but it would certainly remake the Middle East.”

He presented a potential pathway for Iran, working with Gulf states, to pursue the model that they have laid out, focusing on economic development.

Rachel Bronson, a senior advisor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said that it’s widely believed Iran has seen a nuclear weapon as a guarantor of regime survival, in the model of North Korea. But she said there’s a chance that Iran wants to go down a different path.

“That begs the question whether the Iranians want to live like North Koreans and want to live in a sanctioned regime and in such isolation, which the Iranians demonstrated that they don’t want to live that way,” Bronson said.

David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, argued that, while the Fordow nuclear facility has likely been rendered inoperable due to U.S. strikes, other sites, such as Natanz and Isfahan, can likely be repaired or rebuilt.

“I don’t think anybody can say whether or not this is really gone for good. My guess is you’re going to need a political agreement with getting inspectors back in to make sure that it stays out of circulation,” he said.

Sanger added that it would be a “long time” before Iran is in a position where it will be willing to negotiate. He said he’s concerned about the lack of inspections in the interim, “because I think if we get into another confrontation with them, they will leave the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. And if that happens, I think we could see a second cycle of [military action].”

From the U.S. side, Sanger said that Washington publicly presenting a proposal could build pressure on Iran to strike a deal. Without diplomacy, Sanger continued, future military confrontation is likely. He said there are also major questions around enrichment that Israel and Iran will have to answer.

“The question for the Israelis is, would they give an assurance that says, ‘We won’t strike you if you don’t try to reconstitute your program and don’t have a covert nuclear weapons program?’” Sanger said. ”For the Iranians on the enrichment point, there’s a question of whether, diplomatically, you could finesse it by saying, ‘You of course have the sovereign right to enrich, but you also, in the exercise of that sovereignty, can elect to give it up for other purposes.’”

And he said that Israel should also consider whether it’s willing to allow limited enrichment under comprehensive and intrusive IAEA inspections, arguing that Iran’s pathway to a potential covert weapons program would come via other avenues. 

Bronson highlighted that the U.S.’ European partners, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin, are now in lockstep with the Trump administration in insisting that Iran must give up its enrichment capacity.

She also said it’s likely unrealistic that Iran would be able to restart a covert nuclear program without the world’s knowledge, particularly if it attempts to retrieve its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, activity that would be noticed by various intelligence services.

“The covert is always out there, but it’s a long way to go for them to get back in that game,” she said.

Johns Hopkins University professor Vali Nasr predicted that the Iranian government’s priority would be finding a way to prevent future strikes by the United States and Israel, rebuilding its deterrence and defense.

He also argued that the public, aggressive diplomacy from the Trump administration, including demands on Truth Social for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, make such a deal politically unpalatable for the Iranian regime. He accused the Trump administration of failing to seriously negotiate before its strikes.

“You’re basically asking for surrender. It’s not a compromise anymore,” Nasr said. “So then the question becomes, what is the acceptable cost for surrender? Would the supreme leader think that Iran is back to the wall sufficiently for him to … go and sign a surrender treaty?”

Nasr suggested that the U.S. would have to offer Iran incentives to bring in to the table and that Tehran would make significant demands for such a deal, including a guaranteed end to Israeli strikes on Iran and safeguards against the U.S. pulling out of the deal in the future.

The panel members downplayed the notion that regime change is an imminent prospect in Iran.

Hadley said the most likely source of such a change would be from a faction inside the regime, like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that decides it wants to reduce the role of the mullahs and their revolutionary ideology. 

“If folks come out in the streets it may be because one of those factions has called them to the streets to give them an excuse for making some kind of change with the regime,” Hadley said. “But that’s going to take a long, I think, considerable time, to play out.”

Sanger said that “betting on regime change is a risky business.” He said that the Obama administration had been gambling on the idea that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be dead before the JCPOA sunset.

“It’s pretty clear from talking to the Israelis who were in Washington last week, that is their bet now: They are just pushing for time, and they think a regime change will happen,” Sanger continued. “But I’m not sure where they get that confidence.”

Nasr predicted that there will be no major changes inside Iran as long as Khamenei is still alive. And he argued that the U.S. would need to lay out an attractive alternative and future for Iran in order to motivate a faction like the IRGC to take action.

“How do you force this shift in Iran? How do you cause the debate at the top that people seriously consider that this is a dead end and there’s some other path on the table?” Nasr said. “Iranian leaders, hardline moderates cannot react to what is theoretically possible but is not actually solidly in front of them as an option.”

At the same time, Nasr said that the failure of Iran’s proxy network had been a significant blow to segments of Iran’s government, leaving them in a weakened position in the regime.