The article “The Iran Nuclear Deal – A Simple Guide” by William J. Broad and Sergio Peçanha presents the view of the authors on the negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue. In this article, the journalists introduce a number of arguments that state the efficiency and insecurity of these negotiations. However, they provide some evidence of the doubtfulness of some negotiation points. Obviously, there are the agreements, which seem rather convincing and satisfy both negotiation parties.
For example, the restriction of the uranium enrichment is an advantageous point for both, Iran, and the USA. Now in Iran there are more than 9,000 centrifuges, and as many are in reserve. The Iranians want to leave them and even ask for more, and the Americans are ready to leave them only 6500. However, these centrifuges are of extremely low quality, and in both cases the production of the nuclear weapon is a long process.
Therefore, the chance to agree with Iran on this issue is extremely high. Also, the parties have to reach a compromise on the nature of the inspection regime of Tehran’s nuclear program. Iranians must demonstrate that they are willing to go beyond the standard checks of security measures to demonstrate their peaceful intentions. In order to do it, Iran agreed to provide the access to centrifuges to the international experts. Western countries want the deal to operate for at least ten years. Iran would prefer a shorter time.
Iran demands the immediate relief of all sanctions while the US prefers a gradual lifting of sanctions. Although, there are some discordant aspects, both sides are interested in the peaceful outcome of this issue. All they need to reach the agreement on all disputable questions are the guarantees, as the USA and Iran could not achieve mutual understanding for a long time.
The agreement should give Western governments a right to make sure that Iran is not going to create nuclear weapons, and if Iran cheats, the US and allies should have enough time to react. In the conclusion of the article, the authors dispute the reliability and safety of these agreements, regardless of their evident advantages. They make the readers meditate on possible negative outcomes of the negotiations, as they give time to Iran to produce a nuclear weapon.
Despite the controversial issues, experts insist that the agreement is appropriate for all parties involved, it can be achieved, and that such a deal is better than the status quo or failure of negotiations. All negotiators, including skeptics on both sides, have to understand that a compromise is necessary and that Iran will remain a certain potential to develop nuclear weapons, regardless of the results of negotiations.
This article is more integrative than distributive because it consists of a number of the arguments for the effectiveness of the conducted negotiations. Any agreement is better than nothing. Despite the disputes around the chances of successful completion of the negotiations, they remain sufficiently large. This article is integrative because it demonstrates the profits of both parties thus, the authors of this paper provide the evidence of winning perspectives of the agreements. Undoubtedly, there is a multitude of factors that can influence the behavior of both negotiators although they are the stakeholders of the peaceful way out. Thus, in case if both parties will adhere to the conditions of the covenants, the negotiations will succeed.