Negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 nations have passed the preliminary stages. The discussions, completed in Vienna on April 9, will resume in May with hopes of a long-term agreement being signed by July 20. With a deal possibly so close, it is essential to understand what will come of these negotiations.

The path taken by Iran and world powers is reaching a distinctive fork. In one direction, a deal is made. In the other, no deal is made. For the casual observer, the first seems to meander in a far more appealing direction. But over the horizon, where does each trail lead?

Path 1: Deal

Let’s first consider the first option: A deal is made.

In order for a deal to be struck whereby Iran would make permanent steps toward remaining a non-nuclear power, world powers would have to offer Iran something in return. Iran can’t be expected to give something for nothing.

In all likelihood, Iran will be offered more sanctions relief. We saw in the Joint Plan of Action that even holding Iran to a six-month deal required the relieving of substantial sanctions.

This relief gave the Iranian economy a much-needed boost. What U.S. President Barack Obama originally called “modest relief” has proven to be a massive windfall. According to the International Energy Agency, Iran’s oil exports were up to 1.65 million barrels per day in February—650,000 more than Iran agreed it would export under the Joint Plan.

The expansion of Iran’s oil market sent revenues soaring, according to former U.S. ambassador to the UN and current ceo of United Against Nuclear Iran (uani), Mark Wallace. At a subcommittee hearing on the “Implementation of the Iran Nuclear Deal,” Wallace stated that the sanctions relief could total “well more than $20 billion when accounting for the full macroeconomic picture in Iran.” And all this came from sanctions relief that was supposed to amount to no more than $7 billion.

So what sort of sanctions easing can we expect Iran to demand if there is to be a permanent deal made? Surely the Iranian negotiation team will see the opportunity to push for a more complete relief of sanctions. Iran would suddenly be swimming in wealth derived from unfrozen funds and a booming oil-based economy.

Now consider what Iran spent its money on before it received any sanctions relief.

Back in 2013, when West-hating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still in power and the effect of sanctions was placing an enormous burden on Iran’s economy, Iran was increasing its support of terrorist groups.

According to the “Country Reports on Terrorism 2012” released by the U.S. Bureau of Counterterrorism, “The year 2012 was … notable in demonstrating a marked resurgence of Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism.” The report made mention of the bond between Iran and Hezbollah, saying, “Iran and Hezbollah’s terrorist activity has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe and Africa.” The report also highlighted Iran’s dealings with groups such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas in Gaza, Kata’ib Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, al Qaeda in Iraq, the Arab Revolutionary Brigades and more.

Iran sponsored all these groups at a time when it was at its most vulnerable economically. If Iran is given access to frozen assets and an open oil market, imagine the rials Tehran would have to spend on terrorist organizations.

In a Washington Post opinion piece, former director of the cia and a former commander of U.S. Central Command David Petraeus wrote:

It is possible that a nuclear deal would pave the way to a broader detente in Iran’s relations with the United States and its neighbors. It is, however, more plausible that removing sanctions would strengthen Tehran’s ability to project malign influence in its near-abroad, including Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the Arabian peninsula and the Palestinian territories.Rather than marking the end of our long struggle with Iran, therefore, a successful nuclear deal could result in the United States and our partners in the Middle East facing a better-resourced and, in some respects, more dangerous adversary.

This warning comes from a highly decorated four-star general who served in the U.S. Army for over 37 years.

While taking this path of relieving sanctions may seem the obvious choice for world leaders, there is a definite need to look further down the road. Relief could merely lead to increased instability across the Middle East, as Tehran puts more cash in terrorist pockets.

And who is to say Iran would abide by its promises in an upcoming agreement? Iran has a solid history of side-stepping or flat-out ignoring promises made in Geneva. For instance, Iran still enriches uranium, works on its Arak Plutonium Facility and installs new centrifuges—all broken promises. One can only expect that trend to continue if another agreement is signed.

If sanctions are lifted, Iran would suddenly have cash to not only increase its funding of terrorist groups and radical regimes in the Middle East and abroad, but also more to put toward its nuclear program! Remember, the international community will be trusting Iran to hold to a long-term commitment—which it simply may not do!

Although the first path doesn’t look that great, the alternative is just as bad.

Path 2: No Deal

If the second option is taken: No deal is made.

Suddenly Iran is no longer constrained by the obligation to hold meetings with the P5+1 or host UN inspectors. Iran has received the benefit of six months of sanctions relief, and it will have the benefit of oil deals established during the Joint Plan, meaning it will take time before any new sanctions can be levied.

Iran’s nuclear program will be closer than ever to producing nuclear-grade uranium. On top of that, Iran will have more justification. Tehran can claim that it tried its best at negotiating a deal with the West, only to see it all fall through. Then, if more sanctions are slapped down on Iran, it will only further convince the Ayatollah and his radical cohorts that making deals with the “Great Satan” will never work.

The White House will also be in a tough position. Does it now turn against the “moderate” Iranian leader, Hassan Rouhani, after working so furiously to support him over the past year? Will President Obama be willing to jeopardize one of the key achievements of his term in office, reconciliation with Iran?

One way or another, America would lose face in the Middle East. Either it would be seen as weak if it lets Iran go back to its nuclear program, or it would appear hypocritical—and have to admit fault—by re-sanctioning Iran.

Even if Washington admitted its mistake in trusting Iran and re-sanctioned the regime, the sanctions would take a long time to have an effect. Iran’s economy has spent the last six months getting back on its feet—it will take a while to get Iran down and fighting on its back again. Until and after that time, Iran would be working toward nuclear arms.

The only other option on the table, however improbable, is the military option. With the U.S. military quickly drawing down in the Middle East, and the U.S. government slashing its military funding and downsizing, added to America’s war-weary reluctance to involve itself in more conflict, all signs point to the unlikelihood of a military option.

So there are the two options. Neither seems particularly appealing, and both seem to lead to a similar outcome—violence and escalating regional tensions. We cannot backtrack and take a path that should have been chosen years ago. A choice must, and will, be made.

Facing such a bleak outcome, there is certainly something we can look to in the midst of all this. With the aid of Bible prophecy, we can see even further down the road ahead. God promises that although trial and tribulation loom today, they will lead to incredibly good news! Christ is going to intervene and end man’s constant struggle against fellow man. Read it for yourself in the book of Isaiah (e.g. Isaiah 2:4). This path leads to peace for the entire world.

To understand how relations between America and Iran have led to this fork in the road, read “The Geneva Deal Is Worse Than You Know.”