As the March 24 deadline inches closer, the coalition of Western states and Iran continue to negotiate a deal that would constrain Tehran’s nuclear program.

The P5+1 (U.N. Security Council permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia, and the U.S. — and Germany) wants limits on Iran’s centrifuges, the elimination of most of its existing fuel and the permission to conduct routine inspections — in return for an attenuation of economic sanctions. According to a news article published in the New York Times on Feb. 23, Iranian production of nuclear fuel will ostensibly be limited for 10 years under a deal. Tehran would like to see such sanctions lifted, affirming that it is not seeking nuclear energy for military purposes.

“They must either reach an agreement with Iran within the framework of logic and international law and the sooner they do it, it’ll benefit everyone involved,” President Hassan Rouhani of Iran said at a cabinet meeting on March 4, according to a government transcript. “Or else they will have to deny the facts and continue with their sanctions regime, in which scenario they will have to witness the faster progress of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.”

Dr. Matthew Bunn shared his insights on the deal in a phone interview with the Winged Post. Bunn served for three years as an adviser to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he played a major role in U. S. policies related to the disposition of nuclear weapons materials in the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. For President Clinton, he directed a clandestine report on security for nuclear materials in Russia.

He is referring to Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu’s blowhard campaign for the West to drop negotiations entirely. Israel instead seeks an indefinite moratorium on Tehran’s construction of nuclear infrastructure, predicting that Iran would capitulate if sanctions were tightened.

Dr. Bunn further explained why Israel’s proposition would fail, noting that if a deal was clinched, the Iranian government would not surrender loosened sanctions solely for a nuclear bomb.

“Politically, [successful negotiations] would create a flow of benefits to Iran, including to powerful players within Iran [who] would not want to cut off [such benefits], and would reduce the sense of threat in Iran, particularly since it would be an agreement with all of the permanent members of the U. N. Security Council,” he said. “I think as a result of Netanyahu’s visit, Obama probably has a slightly better chance than he had before of being able to sustain a veto [of any further sanctions that would scupper the deal].”

Even CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, not often a vehement critic of U.S. government policy, declared that Netanyahu had “entered never-never land” after the prime minister spoke on March 3 before a joint session of Congress — a rare, provocative gesture by any foreign leader. Netanyahu ventured to galvanize House Republicans against President Obama’s plan, which is largely backed by Western Europe.

Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow with the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Brookings Institution, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on Feb. 26 advocating for a diplomatic settlement between Iran and the U.S. During the Clinton administration, Einhorn was the Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation at the State Department, and during the Obama administration he was the Secretary of State’s Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control.

Einhorn shared his insights in a phone interview with the Winged Post.

“It’s not a perfect agreement, and it will be a controversial agreement, but I think it is far better than the alternatives to a negotiated solution,” he said. “[Netanyahu] is asking us to achieve the unachievable. In principle, it would be better to get everything Netanyahu wants, but I would say it’s impossible.”

On March 5, Secretary of State John Kerry stopped in Riyadh to reassure Saudi officials that their interests will be protected in the face of a deal with largely Shia Iran. Sunni leaders worry that loosened economic sanctions will enable Iran to supply aid and possibly paramilitary forces to Alawite President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in the conflict against the Islamic State, and to Hizbollah in Lebanon. Although American and Iranian goals align in Iraq and Syria, Kerry pledged that collaboration between the two countries never occurred.

“The Gulf Arab states are less focused on the specific elements of the nuclear deal than they are on what they think may be the implications of reaching any deal,” Einhorn said. “They’re concerned that if we reach a deal with Iran, there will be a shift in our allegiances in the region that will put greater importance on relying on Iran’s goodwill, distanc[ing] ourselves from our traditional allies. I don’t think that’s at all the intention of the Obama administration.”

Safia Khouja (12) is half Lebanese — she believes the prospective U.S.-Iran deal is necessary. Similarly, Felix Wu (12), a member of Harker JSA, believes that Netanyahu blundered with his largely political gesture in Washington.

According to the State Department, negotiations will resume on March 15 in Geneva after a brief interim.

This article was originally published in the pages of the Winged Post on March 13, 2015.