It’s been three months since the nuclear deal signed between Iran and Western powers in Geneva in November went into effect, with Iran making nuclear concessions in return for limited sanctions relief.
With the halfway point of the deal falling on April 20, various media outlets have published analyses and summaries of the progress made in the negotiations so far, as well as forecasts for their eventual outcome. Most forecasts were hopeful, stating that despite some outstanding issues that need to be ironed out, such as a lack of trust and disagreements on certain details, a final-status agreement would be achieved in the coming months.
The bottom line? The Huffington Post suggested the relatively smooth sailing of the past three months would be complicated by the challenges and complexities still at hand. On CNN, Farid Zakaria published a guest blog by Taylor Cullis and Jamal Abdi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) accusing opponents of the ongoing negotiations with Iran of “disingenuousness” in their efforts to “undermine one of the most promising prospects for limiting Iran’s nuclear program in years.” Defense One was less harsh, urging Israel and Saudi Arabia to accept that a deal would be forged, in the absence of a practical alternative.
While an op-ed by Gulf News praised both Iran and the US for making just enough concessions to preserve the momentum of the talks, David Ignatius of The Washington Post said the success or failure of the talks would eventually come down to Iran’s willingness to go the distance:
The press seems to miss the deeper question at hand – the readiness of Khamenei’s Iran for compromise and fundamental accommodation with the West.
One cannot ignore the Washington Post article by Petraeus and Serchuk visioning the day after: Iran as a “more dangerous adversary”, and the necessity of linking true reconciliation to cessation of regional destabilizing behavior of Iran.