>
damned if you do, damned if you don't as long as Israel effectively dominates USA middle east policySort of. Israel is the Middle East's regional hegemon. And America is a superpower. Picking both as national enemies was and remains a strategic blunder.
> If they negotiate, the deal gets torn up at best, or they get attacked during negotiations at worst
Again, the deal getting torn up is sad. But it's within the context of decades of antagonism towards powerful enemies. And nobody serious (other than Iran and Oman) seem to be claiming that Iran was open to giving up its nuclear ambitions in Geneva.
> If they maintain any sort of self-defense capability, that's seen as a threat to Israel
They literally chant death to Israel and fund the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah who want to eradicate it. (Weapons aren't inherently offensive or defensive, though they can tend to be more useful as one versus another. Ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs are closer to inherently offensive than inherently defensive.)
> If they shoot back after we bomb 150 schoolgirls, they're the aggressor
Nobody serious claims this. What they are doing by shooting back (and not surrendering) is continuing a losing cycle of violence.
The only thing looser than America's theory of victory in this war is Iran's.
Note: when Iran started shooting at Bahrain, Oman and Azerbaijan, it was the aggressor. Someone shooting at you doesn't mean carte blanche for blowing up non-belligerants.