Security Insiders: World Powers Struck a ‘Good Deal’ With Iran

But experts are split on whether the interim deal will lead to a lasting agreement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif shakes hands with Secretary of State John Kerry after a statement on a landmark deal with Iran halting parts of its nuclear program Nov. 24, 2013 in Geneva.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
Add to Briefcase
Sara Sorcher
Dec. 2, 2013, 4:40 p.m.

A strong ma­jor­ity of Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders thought the re­cent agree­ment between world powers and Ir­an — to lim­it its nuc­le­ar pro­gram in ex­change for some sanc­tions re­lief — is a “good deal,” des­pite scath­ing cri­ti­cism by Ir­an hawks and Is­rael.

The agree­ment, inked in Geneva, “is bet­ter than ex­pec­ted and rolls back key as­pects of the Ir­a­ni­an pro­gress to­ward bomb-grade highly en­riched urani­um,” one In­sider said. It also in­creases likely in­ter­na­tion­al sup­port for tough­er sanc­tions, an­oth­er In­sider ad­ded, if Ir­an does not com­ply with this ac­cord or re­fuses to con­clude an ac­cept­able, sub­sequent com­pre­hens­ive agree­ment.

“Dip­lomacy trumps war here,” an­oth­er In­sider re­marked.

However, sev­er­al In­siders were quick to point out their sup­port is on the con­di­tion the deal serves as a tem­por­ary place­hold­er while a bet­ter one is craf­ted, or, as one In­sider said, “while we work to hit the de­lete but­ton rather than the pause but­ton.”

“If it be­comes the fi­nal deal,” the In­sider con­tin­ued, “it’s dis­astrous.”

However, ob­jec­tions from Is­rael — and mem­bers of Con­gress seek­ing to toughen the fin­an­cial pres­sure even as talks con­tin­ue — re­main the ele­phants in the ne­go­ti­at­ing room. The agree­ment is “a good deal in­so­far as it gives dip­lomacy a chance, when it’s most vo­cal de­tract­ors seem in­tent on some form of mil­it­ary re­sponse to the Ir­a­ni­an ques­tion,” one In­sider said. “Tough­er, con­gres­sion­ally man­dated sanc­tions now would prob­ably break the solid­ar­ity of the cur­rent sanc­tions re­gime rather than strengthen it.” An­oth­er ad­ded: “Let us hope that Bibi [Net­an­yahu, Is­rael’s prime min­is­ter] does not suc­ceed in killing a fi­nal deal.”

A vo­cal 24.5 per­cent of the pool of na­tion­al se­cur­ity and for­eign policy ex­perts dis­liked the deal. “Obama prob­ably got the abil­ity to claim that Ir­an didn’t go nuc­le­ar on his watch, but he’s in­creased the like­li­hood that they will on his suc­cessor’s watch,” one In­sider said. The deal, an­oth­er In­sider ad­ded, “re­wards Ir­an for bad be­ha­vi­or es­pe­cially by provid­ing sanc­tions re­lief and al­low­ing en­rich­ment to con­tin­ue be­fore Ir­an has proven it can be trus­ted.”

The deal didn’t go far enough, the In­sider said. “The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion for­got to in­clude U.S. cit­izens held host­age in Ir­an and calls for re­spect for hu­man rights in the deal.”

In­siders were more di­vided over wheth­er they be­lieved this in­ter­im deal with Ir­an would be the first step on a dip­lo­mat­ic path to­ward ul­ti­mately elim­in­at­ing the coun­try’s nuc­le­ar-weapons pro­gram. The op­tim­ists won a nar­row ma­jor­ity, with 58 per­cent of In­siders be­liev­ing this deal is the first step to­ward a last­ing agree­ment.

If Ir­an com­plies and ne­go­ti­ates in good faith, the six-month dead­line “of­fers hope,” one In­sider said. “If the U.S. holds to the dead­line and re­serves the op­tion of re­in­sti­tut­ing or strength­en­ing sanc­tions, Ir­an is more likely to com­ply. The trick will be for the pres­id­ent to bal­ance Ir­an on one hand and Con­gress (and its de­sire to ramp up sanc­tions) on the oth­er.” Both sides, an­oth­er In­sider said, “have strong in­cent­ives to settle short of war, with an Ir­a­ni­an weapons pro­gram de­ferred, for now.”

Yet 42 per­cent said ne­go­ti­ations will fall apart. “The deal just kicks the can down the road giv­ing Ir­an time and money to con­tin­ue their clandes­tine nuc­le­ar pro­gram,” one In­sider said. “We should not trust Ir­an’s charm of­fens­ive un­der Pres­id­ent Has­san Rouh­ani.” Des­pite this achieve­ment, an­oth­er ad­ded, “it’s hard to see Ir­an mak­ing the stra­tegic de­cision to give up the as­pects of its nuc­le­ar pro­gram that make it threat­en­ing.”

1. Is the re­cent agree­ment between world powers and Ir­an to lim­it its nuc­le­ar pro­gram in ex­change for some sanc­tions re­lief a good deal?

(56 votes)

  • Yes 75.5%
  • No 24.5%


“As Win­ston Churchill once said, jaw-jaw is usu­ally bet­ter than war-war. A lim­ited agree­ment now may lead to a more com­pre­hens­ive agree­ment later. If not, there is al­ways an op­por­tun­ity to bring the ham­mer down.”

“It’s a first step, but a very im­port­ant one.”

“Since nukes wouldn’t buy Ir­an much power pro­jec­tion cap­ab­il­ity any­way, ba­sic­ally any deal that lowered the chance of war would have been good from a U.S. point of view. This was more than good be­cause it ac­tu­ally won some con­ces­sions.”

“The deal is a start, not a fi­nal deal. In it­self, it does not stop the U.S. or its al­lies and part­ners from tak­ing any fu­ture ac­tion, in­clud­ing mil­it­ary op­er­a­tions, if Ir­an fails to hold up its end of the deal.”

“Only if we are pre­pared to act if they do not co­oper­ate and act in good faith. No more lines in the sand. Put up or shut up and be pre­pared for the con­sequences be­cause there is no mil­it­ary op­tion to end the Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar pro­gram.”

“How can any­one who claims to be in­ter­ested in pre­vent­ing an Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar weapon op­pose the only meas­ure that has ever moved Ir­an farther away from a pos­sible bomb?”

“It’s a test, not a deal, but no crit­ic of this pro­cess has ex­plained why an act of war is bet­ter than chal­len­ging Tehran in this way.” 


“The al­tern­at­ive to dip­lomacy is war.”

“Yes, but only in that it pushes fi­nal de­cisions off for an­oth­er six months.”


“There are too many ways for Ir­an to abide by the deal and yet be in a po­s­i­tion to de­vel­op a weapon re­l­at­ively quickly. In ad­di­tion, by loosen­ing the sanc­tions, even tem­por­ar­ily, the agree­ment un­der­mines the ba­sic prin­ciple of the sanc­tions, which was not only to force Ir­an to ter­min­ate its weapons pro­gram but also to pre­vent an Is­raeli strike. Once six months have passed, if there is no sign of fur­ther pro­gress, a strike may be­come in­ev­it­able.”

“While it may provide Ir­an with sanc­tions re­lief, the deal does very little to stop Ir­an’s nuc­le­ar pro­gram. It also does noth­ing to as­suage the con­cerns of U.S. re­gion­al al­lies like Is­rael and the GCC states. It is an ill-con­sidered ef­fort de­signed to grab head­lines and provide the pres­id­ent with some for­eign policy ‘street cred.’ “

“Def­in­itely not. the ques­tion is, giv­en how badly the ad­min­is­tra­tion has handled Ir­an for the last sev­er­al years, is this the least bad deal?”

“It’s a great deal — for Ir­an. They have con­trac­ted out their nuke work to the Norks and Paks so they win all around.”

2. Is this in­ter­im deal the first step to­ward an ac­cord which ul­ti­mately elim­in­ates the Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar pro­gram, or will ne­go­ti­ations in the end fail?

(56 votes)

  • This is the first step to­ward a last­ing agree­ment 58%
  • Ne­go­ti­ations will fall apart 42%

First step to­ward last­ing agree­ment

“The veri­fic­a­tion pro­cesses and in­ser­tion of per­son­nel from the U.S. and oth­er coun­tries in­to Ir­an will help to en­sure this deal’s suc­cess.”

“It may not be everything we want, but there’s a de­cent chance that it’ll be good enough.”

“A real coin toss on an­swer­ing this ques­tion. The ne­go­ti­ations will be vul­ner­able to far too many as yet un­fore­seen pres­sures over the next six months to make more than an in­formed guess.”

“But it will not elim­in­ate the Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar pro­gram — just keep it peace­ful.”

“If it is up to Is­rael, they will cer­tainly fail, which is why Is­rael should be side­lined for their own best in­terest.”

“Con­stant vi­gil­ance will be re­quired.”

“Some last­ing agree­ment is the key to peace. For my­self, I think very little will change if Ir­an gets the bomb. However, I am in the minor­ity, and if they ‘go for it,’ there will be war.”

“There will be a deal, but the Ir­a­ni­ans will work around it even­tu­ally. Some­time in the fu­ture, we will see an Ir­an with a nuc­le­ar-weapons cap­ab­il­ity.”

“If West­ern sanc­tions co­ali­tion can re­main uni­fied to re­im­pose even tough­er sanc­tions in six months should the in­ter­im deal fail, this plan will work.”

“While the deal may fail, oth­er re­gimes (Taiwan, South Africa, Libya) have de­cided they can get more se­cur­ity from trad­ing away their weapons pro­gram than keep­ing it. Con­sid­er­ing the al­tern­at­ives, it is worth the ef­fort.”

“And not just on the nuc­le­ar is­sue but, over time, to­ward nor­mal­iz­ing ties.”

“This could also be the first step to­ward an­oth­er even worse deal.”

“The fi­nal deal may not be total elim­in­a­tion of the nuc­le­ar pro­gram but will res­ult in elim­in­a­tion of the threat.”

“Sadly, I think this is the first step to a last­ing deal — one that will make the world more dan­ger­ous.”

“It’s a bad agree­ment that will last be­cause the pres­id­ent wants to wash his hands of the is­sue and fo­cus on do­mest­ic leg­acy build­ing, while Sec­State is happy to back in­to the the No­bel he cov­ets. The Ir­a­ni­ans will do just enough to keep them both happy.”

Ne­go­ti­ations will fall apart

“Ir­an will give up its am­bi­tion to be­come a nuc­le­ar-weapon state, after hav­ing de­voted so many re­sources to the en­deavor for over a dec­ade. Ir­an’s dip­lo­mat­ic strategy is to buy time un­til it can con­duct a nuc­le­ar test, prov­ing its new status.”

“Khame­nei’s rhet­or­ic has not changed, nor has he giv­en up any of his powers. Ul­ti­mately, he will walk away from any con­ces­sions to the West.”

“At the end of six months, the Ir­a­ni­ans will push for a ‘con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion.’ Shame on us if we al­low it to hap­pen.”

“While it would cer­tainly be de­sir­able, from the U.S. point of view, to reach a last­ing agree­ment with Ir­an, the like­li­hood of reach­ing such an agree­ment is re­mote giv­en the polit­ic­al hurdles and the mis­trust both sides must over­come. While we should cer­tainly try to achieve a long-term agree­ment, we have to plan for the like­li­hood that such ef­forts will fail.”

“I have little faith the Ir­a­ni­an su­preme lead­er is ser­i­ously con­sid­er­ing giv­ing up his abil­ity to cre­ate a nuc­le­ar weapon. But as Yogi Berra once said, it’s hard to pre­dict the fu­ture when it hasn’t happened yet.”

“Ul­ti­mately, the Ir­a­ni­ans want a bomb and they will either have one or be able to as­semble one quickly.”

“I don’t think any­body ser­i­ous is talk­ing about ‘elim­in­at­ing the Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar pro­gram’ at this point. But sure — everything falls apart even­tu­ally. Al­though I should say in the in­terest of full dis­clos­ure I didn’t think we’d get this far.”

Na­tion­al Journ­al’s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders Poll is a peri­od­ic sur­vey of more than 100 de­fense and for­eign policy ex­perts. They in­clude: Gor­don Adams, Charles Al­len, Thad Al­len, James Bam­ford, Dav­id Barno, Milt Bearden, Peter Ber­gen, Samuel “Sandy” Ber­ger, Dav­id Ber­teau, Steph­en Biddle, Nancy Bird­sall, Mari­on Blakey, Kit Bond, Stu­art Bowen, Paula Broad­well, Mike Breen, Mark Brun­ner, Steven Bucci, Nich­olas Burns, Dan By­man, James Jay Cara­fano, Phil­lip Carter, Wendy Cham­ber­lin, Mi­chael Cher­toff, Frank Cil­luffo, James Clad, Richard Clarke, Steve Clem­ons, Joseph Collins, Wil­li­am Court­ney, Lorne Cran­er, Ro­ger Cres­sey, Gregory Dahl­berg, Robert Dan­in, Richard Dan­zig, Daniel Drezn­er, Mack­en­zie Eaglen, Paul Eaton, An­drew Ex­um, Wil­li­am Fal­lon, Eric Farns­worth, Jacques Gansler, Steph­en Gan­yard, Daniel Goure, Mark Green, Mike Green, Mark Gun­zinger, John Hamre, Jim Harp­er, Mi­chael Hay­den, Mi­chael Her­son, Pete Hoek­stra, Bruce Hoff­man, Linda Hud­son, Paul Hughes, Colin Kahl, Don­ald Ker­rick, Rachel Klein­feld, Lawrence Korb, Dav­id Kramer, An­drew Kre­pinev­ich, Charlie Kupchan, W. Patrick Lang, Cedric Leighton, James Lind­say, Justin Lo­gan, Trent Lott, Peter Mansoor, Ron­ald Marks, Bri­an Mc­Caf­frey, Steven Metz, Frank­lin Miller, Philip Mudd, John Nagl, Shuja Nawaz, Kev­in Neal­er, Mi­chael Oates, Thomas Pick­er­ing, Paul Pil­lar, Larry Pri­or, Steph­en Rade­maker, Marc Rai­mondi, Celina Realuyo, Bruce Riedel, Barry Rhoads, Marc Ro­ten­berg, Frank Rug­giero, Kori Schake, Mark Schneider, John Scofield, Tammy Schultz, Steph­en Ses­t­an­ovich, Sarah Se­wall, Mat­thew Sher­man, Jen­nifer Sims, Con­stan­ze Stelzen­müller, Frances Town­send, Mick Train­or, Su­z­anne Spauld­ing, Ted Stroup, Richard Wil­helm, Tamara Wittes, Dov Za­kheim, and Juan Za­r­ate.

What We're Following See More »
Come January Sanders Could Oppose Clinton from the Left
1 hours ago

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, a loyal soldier for Hillary Clinton since he conceded the Democratic presidential nomination in July, plans to push liberal legislation with like-minded senators with or without Clinton’s support if she is elected— and to aggressively oppose appointments that do not pass muster with the party’s left wing." Sanders and other similarly inclined senators are already "plotting legislation" on climate change, prison reform, the minimum wage, and tuition-free college.

McAuliffe Donated to FBI Official’s Wife
1 hours ago

"The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use."

Curt Schilling to Launch Breitbart Radio Show
1 hours ago

Baseball great Curt Schilling says he still needs to clear a challenge to Sen. Elizabeth Warren with his wife, but in the meantime, he's found something to occupy him: the former hurler is going to host a daily online radio show on "The show marks Schilling’s return to media six months after ESPN fired him for sharing an anti-transgender Facebook post."

The New Yorker Endorses Clinton
2 hours ago

The New Yorker has endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying that "barring some astonishment," she will become the next president. Calling Clinton "distinctly capable," the magazine excoriates Donald Trump as a candidate who "favors conspiracy theory and fantasy, deriving his knowledge from the darker recesses of the Internet and 'the shows.'" Additionally, the historical nature of the possibility of "send[ing] a woman to the White House" is not lost on the editors, who note the possibility more than once in the endorsement.

AT&T Seeks to Buy Time Warner
2 hours ago

AT&T agreed to a deal on Saturday to buy Time Warner Inc. for a reported $85.4 billion, a merger that would turn AT&T into a media giant. The two companies announced that they hope to have the deal closed by the end of 2017. However, the completion of the deal will likely not be smooth sailing, as the deal faces potential backlash from antitrust workers, as well as lawmakers. Following the merger's announcement, multiple lawmakers raised skepticism and said they plan to scrutinize the deal further, with Minn. Sen. Amy Klobuchar calling for a hearing.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.