What's the deal with the Iran deal? Will the agreement to curtail Iran's nuclear program make us safer or help Iran get the bomb?

• Author: Smith, Patricia
• Position: INTERNATIONAL

Landmark agreement or historic mistake? That's the debate swirling around the nuclear deal Iran signed in July with the United States and five other nations. The agreement, which took 20 months of tense negotiations, is intended to curtail Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for more than a decade. In exchange, Iran will get some relief from international economic sanctions that have crippled its economy.

Supporters of the deal, including President Obama, say it's the best hope for preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Without it, they argue, a military confrontation with Iran is almost inevitable.

"The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war--maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," Obama said. "How can we in good conscience justify war before we've tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives?"

But critics, including some members of Congress and U.S. allies in the Middle East, say Iran's leaders can't be trusted.

"It's going to hand a dangerous regime billions of dollars in sanctions relief while paving the way for a nuclear Iran," said Speaker of the House John Boehner, a Republican.

The agreement--between Iran and the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China--puts restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel Iran can keep for the next 15 years. The current stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98 percent, most likely by shipping much of it to Russia. Iran's centrifuges-fast-spinning machines that process uranium into a weapons-grade form--will be reduced by two-thirds.

Those limits are intended to ensure that it would take Iran a year to make enough nuclear material for a single bomb if it decided to abandon the deal. Analysts say that Iran--which has long maintained its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes like generating electricity--could currently make a weapon in two to three months if it chose to do so.

Critics say the deal is bad for several reasons: The 24-day warning before inspections will let Iran hide illicit activities; there are too many loopholes; and the deal only postpones, rather than eliminates, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon and threaten U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, which Iran's leaders have said should be "wiped off the map."

Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the deal a "historic mistake" that would create a "terrorist nuclear superpower."

Congress had a deadline of mid-September to weigh in on the deal. While most Republicans and some Democrats were planning to vote against it, most political analysts didn't think there were enough votes--the required two-thirds majorities of both the House and Senate--to override President Obama's certain veto of any vote against the accord.

Revolution & Hostages

If the deal goes...