The six countries leading diplomatic efforts with Iran are at odds over many strategic issues. But Tehran’s nuclear program is one area of global policy that unites them all.
As the debate over intervention in Syria demonstrated, the American public is not eager to go to war in the Middle East when the United States itself is not in danger.
The agreement reached in Geneva will slow Iran’s nuclear progress. For that reason alone it deserves support.
Iran is one of the few countries in the Middle East where America’s strategic interests and democratic values align, rather than clash.
Under the new nuclear deal, the broad sanctions architecture remains. Iran’s oil industry is still under sanctions, and if indeed Iran wants to emerge from that isolation, it’s going to require some consistent nuclear compromise.
While the Iran nuclear deal offers a potential nuclear détente, the United States and Iran are not on the verge of a rapprochement just yet.
The existence of this six-month deal creates a very clear deadline by which Iran must commit to steps that will demonstrably end its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
The interim agreement between Iran and the P5+1 includes technical limitations on Iran’s program but most importantly serves as a confidence-building process.
The international community must be aware of the risks and opportunities inherent in a final deal over Iran’s nuclear program.
Agreements like the Iran nuclear deal in Geneva always contain risks, but in this instance, the rewards are sufficient to justify the risks.
















Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices