On Nov. 24, the United States and five other countries struck a deal with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions on the Middle Eastern country. The deal has been hailed as a foreign policy victory for President Barack Obama while others like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu call it a “historic mistake.”

The Daily Orange talked to two professors to update students on the situation and explain the terms of the deal.

The Daily Orange: What is Iran’s nuclear deal?

Renée de Nevers, an associate professor of public administration: The Iran deal is an interim agreement between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany — also known as the P5+1 — and Iran that will last six months. The goal is to allow more time for the parties to negotiate a longer-lasting agreement in a less tense environment.

Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an associate professor of political science: In 1979, when there was a revolution in Iran, Iran’s pro-U.S. government was replaced with a radical Islamic state, where hostility toward the United States became its mantra.

Once the war ended, they decided to restart the nuclear program that started before the revolution. They restarted the nuclear program and for about two decades, the controversy has been whether Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb or if Iran’s nuclear program has peaceful purposes in mind.

The U.N. imposed all sorts of sanctions and the game became ‘we need to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power because they can set in motion a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as other states that are anti-Iran feel compelled to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.’ That’s why they started to turn the screws on Iran and impose sanctions that the U.S. claims that are the strictest sanctions imposed on another state.

That is what has brought us to the recent negotiations. Part of the sanctions regime has hurt Iran economically, in the sense they can’t sell its oil. It was deprived of much of its availability to have financial transaction with the outside world. Feeling the pressure, the Iranians decided they want to negotiate a deal to lift some of the sanctions. For President Obama, this is important because he did not want to go down in history as the president on whose watch Iran became a nuclear power.

The D.O.: Why are some people like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against the deal?

de Nevers: Israel and some of the Gulf States are opposed to this deal. Netanyahu argued that Iran cannot be trusted to honor the agreement, or to negotiate a final agreement on its nuclear program. He has argued that sanctions should be maintained because they are the only way to force Iran to give up its nuclear program entirely. The current agreement does not require this.

Boroujerdi: Israel is the only nuclear power in the region right now. Meanwhile, the irresponsible talk that former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad engaged in about wiping Israel off the map has added to the worries about Iran.

Netanyahu’s policy has been to cry wolf and to try to put pressure on the White House to not negotiate with Iran or try the best possible deal in terms of Israeli security. The Israeli position has also exposed differences between Israel and the U.S.

The D.O.: How will this affect Middle Eastern politics and U.S. foreign policy?

de Nevers: The implications for the Middle East remain to be seen. Much depends on whether further progress is made on a permanent agreement, and what its terms are. That in turn depends on whether the Iranian government will genuinely commit to verifiable limits on its nuclear program that are acceptable to both the P5+1 and to regional actors. This also depends on questions about Iran’s foreign policy goals both regionally and globally.

Boroujerdi: It’s already affecting Middle Eastern politics because everybody is questioning what will happen. Will there be this estrangement between the U.S. and Israel or the U.S. and Saudi Arabia? Will the states who are anti-Iran and Israel have a common enemy that will bring them closer? Will they be inclined to seek nuclear weapons?

All of these are important questions, but the most important one is after three decades of animosity, would this agreement finally open the door for a rapprochement between Iran and the United States and put the past behind them and think about areas where they have common interest?

Published on December 4, 2013 at 1:26 am

Contact Ellen: ekmeyers@syr.edu | @ellenkmeyers