• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Ariel (Eli) Levite"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Iranian Proliferation",
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Arms Control"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The Negotiations on Iran’s Nuclear Program

If the parties’ opening positions are used as benchmarks, the parameters of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action favor Iran. If the deal is seen through the lenses of their strategic objectives, the picture is far more nuanced.

Link Copied
By Ariel (Eli) Levite
Published on Apr 8, 2015

Source: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs

The ink has barely dried on the recent “Parameters” for a “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA), which itself is merely another interim step en route to a fully-fledged comprehensive agreement that may or may not be reached by the end of June and which, furthermore, even if concluded could (certainly if judged in light of the previous agreements with Iran) significantly deviate from its current composition. Already, predictably conflicting narratives between Iran and the US have emerged on what was agreed upon in Lausanne, raising serious questions whether the parameters of the deal as described will survive the ongoing negotiations. Under these circumstances it is challenging to provide a definitive assessment of the agreement in hand.

Nevertheless, how does it look? In our judgment a great deal depends on one’s vantage point. If one is persuaded that the agreement averted imminent Iranian nuclearization and that such prospect would have inevitably unleashed war with Iran, then almost any deal seems preferable. If on the other hand you believe that Iran was not about to resume its pre-2003 Manhattan -type nuclear weapons program and war was a remote prospect, then time need not have been of the essence for the P-5, which in turn casts the achieved outcome in much less favorable light the outcome achieved.

This article was published in full in the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

About the Author

Ariel (Eli) Levite

Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Technology and International Affairs Program

Levite was the principal deputy director general for policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission from 2002 to 2007.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    Demystifying the Nuclear Threshold

      Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton

  • Article
    Promoting Responsible Nuclear Energy Conduct: An Agenda for International Cooperation

      Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton

Ariel (Eli) Levite
Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Technology and International Affairs Program
Ariel (Eli) Levite
Political ReformNuclear PolicyArms ControlNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Leaving Russian-Speakers Without Representation Is a Risk for Latvia

    If the Russian-speaking community in Latvia cannot articulate their interests without being seen as disloyal, they could end up embracing a pro-Kremlin agenda.

      Sergejs Potapkins

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Putin Has Been a Hindrance, Not a Help, to United Russia’s Election Campaign

    Russia’s ruling party would have benefited from Putin appearing as its distant patron, but as an active frontman imposing his views on the public, he has done nothing but harm both the party’s election campaign and the ruling system overall.

      Andrey Pertsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ten Years After Karimov’s Death, How Much Has Uzbekistan Really Changed?

    In the tenth year of his presidency, President Mirziyoyev’s system is becoming even more personalized than that of his predecessor Karimov.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    As a Former Defense Minister Revolts in Ukraine, Is Zelensky’s System Fracturing?

    The greater threat to Zelensky comes not from Fedorov alone, but from the convergence between the former defense minister’s political campaign and the anti-corruption investigations moving ever closer to the presidential administration.

      Balázs Jarábik

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Fedorov’s Challenge to Zelensky Could Upend Ukrainian Politics

    With his public call for new elections in Ukraine, ex-defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov has opened Pandora’s box.

      Konstantin Skorkin

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.