Ignore June 30: Time is on the Side of a Better Iran Deal

Prior to the "interim deal" reached in November 2013, Iranian nuclear negotiators could—and did—play for time while the regime rapidly added more centrifuges and increased production of enriched uranium. That is no longer the case. For the first time in years, the interim deal froze much of Iran's nuclear program and rolled back some of its key elements. Far less well understood are the negotiating reasons why time is actually on the side of the U.S. and its P5+1 partners to strengthen the vital "details" of a comprehensive nuclear deal—provided the P5+1 allies stick together and the U.S. Congress does not prematurely derail the talks. The sanctions have bitten hard, with the value of Iran's currency halved and its oil exports reduced from roughly 2.5 million barrels per day to about 1.1 million. And that bite has become even sharper than initially expected as oil prices have plummeted by 40-50% over the last two years. This has virtually doubled the cost to Iran of the oil sanctions. Meanwhile, its weak economy suffers even more as billions are poured into Iran's military aggression in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere. If "crippling sanctions" were heavily responsible for bringing Iran to the table, the sharp economic pain of remaining sanctions compounded by cheaper oil and swollen military spending make delaying a comprehensive deal increasingly costly to Iran. Meanwhile, its nuclear program has largely been put on hold by the interim deal. In this context, P5+1 negotiators should hold out for a good deal, which has a number of characteristics detailed in this article.