U.S. media outlets, experts, and former officials have voiced strong opinions on the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the world's six major powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States. The following is a rundown of op/eds on the nuclear talks by former U.S. officials and editorial boards from major U.S. newspapers.
Editorial Boards
The New York Times
"Saving the Nuclear Deal With Iran"
“[T]he power to permanently lift most sanctions lies with Congress, where many members deeply mistrust Tehran, and Republican leaders have said that new and stronger sanctions are near the top of their to-do list in the new Congress. Such a move might be justified down the road if negotiations collapse, or if Iran cheats on its commitments. But at this stage it could easily undermine the talks, split the major powers and propel Iran to speed its nuclear development.”
— Jan. 10, 2015, in the New York Times
"An Emerging Nuclear Deal With Iran"
“The nuclear threat has dominated Iran’s relations with the United States for more than a decade. If this can be resolved, the two countries may be able to tackle other differences, including Iran’s missile program and its growing involvement in regional conflicts. It won’t be easy, but it could open up space for cooperation.”
“The agreement must be judged on the complete package, not on any single provision. Even if the deal is not perfect, the greater risk could well be walking away and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear activities unfettered.”
— Feb. 25, 2015, in the New York Times
The Washington Post
"The emerging Iran nuclear deal raises major concerns"
“As the Obama administration pushes to complete a nuclear accord with Iran, numerous members of Congress, former secretaries of state and officials of allied governments are expressing concern about the contours of the emerging deal. Though we have long supported negotiations with Iran as well as the interim agreement the United States and its allies struck with Tehran, we share several of those concerns and believe they deserve more debate now — before negotiators present the world with a fait accompli.
The problems raised by authorities ranging from Henry Kissinger, the country’s most senior former secretary of state, to Sen. Timothy M. Kaine, Virginia’s junior senator, can be summed up in three points:
First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.
Second, in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies.
Finally, the Obama administration is signaling that it will seek to implement any deal it strikes with Iran — including the suspension of sanctions that were originally imposed by Congress — without a vote by either chamber. Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term.”
— Feb. 5, 2015, in the Washington Post
The Los Angeles Times
"New Iran Sanctions? Not Now"
“Negotiating with Iran on a permanent agreement to ensure that it doesn't develop nuclear weapons is challenging enough. But the Obama administration simultaneously must deal with members of Congress who are determined to impose new economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic that could jeopardize not only the final agreement but also the interim deal reached in Geneva last month, in which Iran agreed to suspend progress on its nuclear program.”
— Dec. 13, 2014, in the Los Angeles Times
Chicago Sun-Times
"Poke in the president’s eye is bad foreign policy"
“For Congress to threaten new sanctions during talks between Iran, the U.S. and other world powers profoundly handicaps the negotiators and gives Iran an excuse to walk away. The collapse of negotiations could easily lead to an armed conflict.
Meddling now in the negotiations — at the moment when a credible deal is possible — can’t amount to any good. And, most important, there is plenty of time to impose stiffer sanctions on Iran if negotiations fall apart.”
— Jan. 22, 2015, in the Chicago Sun-Times
The Boston Globe
"Congress shouldn’t scuttle Iran nuclear talks with new sanctions"
“There’s no downside to letting these negotiations continue unhindered by new sanctions. In fact, one condition of the agreement is that no further sanctions be imposed. Meanwhile, the agreement does allow for new sanctions if Iran is found to be in breach. Add to this the distressed state of the Iranian economy and falling price of oil, and the United States is clearly bargaining from a position of strength. The US should not breach the 2013 agreement by imposing sanctions… with only two years left in the Obama presidency, a sanctions vote could send the wrong signals to Tehran, and put an agreement in jeopardy. If Iran backs out of talks now, the United States would be in a worse place than before negotiations began: Iran could resume its nuclear program, and the United States would be alienated from its allies.”
— Jan. 22, 2015, in the Boston Globe
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member Bret Stephens
"The Obama administration likes to make much of the notion that Iran, starved by sanctions, is like a beggar at a banquet. If so, this beggar doesn’t settle for scraps. If Iran says no to a deal, Mr. Kerry will soon be back with a better offer. If it says yes, it will take what it’s given and, in good time, take some more.
Al Qaeda on a “path to defeat.” America “out of Iraq.” It won’t be long before a nuclear deal with Iran will join the list of Mr. Obama’s hollow Mideast achievements."
— Nov. 10, 2014, in the Wall Street Journal
Bloomberg View
"Leave aside for the moment the typical partisan debate and more high-minded questions over the respective roles of the legislative and executive branches. The central question here is whether the bill under discussion will increase the odds of a good nuclear deal with Iran. The answer is no.
"Of course Congress has the right (backed by ample historical precedents) to weigh in on the Iran negotiations, not to mention overseeing any agreement. But Obama doesn’t need Congress’s approval to conclude this deal, which is why the White House has rightly promised a veto.
"The Constitution gives the prerogative in the conduct of foreign policy to the executive branch. Although an international treaty can become binding on the U.S. only if the Senate provides its advice and consent to ratification by a two-thirds majority, the president has the power to conclude so-called executive agreements with other nations."
— March 5, 2014, on Bloomberg View
Experts and Former U.S. Officials
William J. Perry, Sean O’Keefe, Adm. James Stavradis, and Joe R. Reeder
"Let’s Make a Deal with Iran"
“We are at a crucial moment. Unless our leaders set aside their domestic political differences and pull together to keep the Iranian nuclear negotiations on track, America may lose an important opportunity to enhance its security and influence world history for the better.”
“Let’s pull together and seek a diplomatic solution. If an agreement is reached, fully studied and deemed inadequate, there will be more than enough support for stronger measures. But none of those options will be as desirable or effective as an acceptable negotiated settlement. At that stage it will be near impossible to restart negotiations. If we’re ever likely to see an acceptable agreement, this is it. Let’s not let this perishable opportunity get away.”
— Feb. 24, 2015, in Politico
William J. Perry is a former secretary of defense. Sean O'Keefe is a former secretary of the Navy and deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Adm. James Stavridis (ret.) served as NATO's supreme commander. Joe R. Reeder is a former undersecretary of the Army.
U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John H. Johns (ret.) and Angela Canterbury
"Avoid new sanctions now and keep Iran’s nuclear program in check"
“The bottom line is that Iran is significantly further away from a nuclear weapon today than it was one year ago. What’s more, these results reflect a surprising turnabout from the preceding decade in which Iran’s capabilities grew steadily while the major powers were divided on how to respond.”
“We must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The best chance at doing so is to support the president’s challenging, but necessary, diplomatic talks that continue to make steady progress and yield verifiable results.”
— Jan. 22, 2015, in The Hill
Johns serves on the Council for a Livable World Advisory Board and is a former deputy assistant defense secretary. Canterbury is the executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Council for a Livable World and Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The views expressed are their own.
Paul R. Pillar
"Get over it: There’s no better deal coming on Iran’s nuclear program"
“Members of Congress who seem primed to oppose whatever agreement emerges from the negotiations usually base their opposition on the idea that rejecting the agreement would clear the way for a ‘better deal.’ That belief is a fantasy.
“Members of Congress who oppose an agreement would, in effect, be casting a vote in favor of allowing Iran to run as many centrifuges as it wants; to accumulate unlimited stockpiles of enriched uranium, and to resume enrichment at the higher levels it has previously abandoned. It also would be a vote to remove additional international inspectors placed in Iran under the preliminary accords.
Anyone who casts a vote with these effects will have a lot of explaining to do to constituents.”
— Feb. 25, 2015, in Reuters
Paul Pillar is a 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency
Dennis Ross, Eric Edelman, and Ray Takeyh
"Time to Take It to Iran"
"It is time to acknowledge that we need a revamped coercive strategy, one that threatens what the Islamic Republic values the most—its influence in the Middle East and its standing at home. And the pattern of concessions at the negotiating table must stop if there is to be an acceptable agreement. Iranian officials must come to understand that there will be no further concessions to reach an accord and that time is running out for negotiations."
The United States and Iran are destined to remain adversaries. It may be possible for enemies to negotiate an arms control compacts, but the path to such an accord will not come from additional concessions by the 5+1; if we want an acceptable deal at this stage, Iran’s leaders need to see they have more to lose than gain by not concluding one."
— Jan. 23, 2015, in Politico
Dennis Ross is a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and served as a special assistant to President Obama from 2009 to 2011. Eric Edelman is a distinguished fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and served as undersecretary of defense during the George W. Bush administration. Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Nancy Soderberg and John Bradshaw
“Give Strategic Patience a Chance”
“As negotiators jockey in Geneva to reach a framework agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by the deadline, which comes at the end of March, hardliners in both Washington and Iran threaten to scuttle the deal. Calls for an arbitrary increase in tough sanctions from Washington and charges of bad faith from Iran indicate many want to squash almost any deal. It is important to recognize how these negotiations are in our deep national interests.”
“Certainly, all Americans want to see a final deal and an end to Iran’s shenanigans. What opponents of these negotiations fail to understand is that leadership sometimes requires the more complicated – and at times – frustrating path. History shows that strategic patience is often the wiser course. Ronald Reagan, for instance, spent his entire presidency negotiating with the evil empire ofthe Soviet Union. And America was safer for it. These negotiations with Iran do not indicate acceptance of Iran’s history of supporting terrorism, killing Americans and supporting enemies of Israel. But they do represent our best chance of ending Iran’s dangerous nuclear program and opposing those in Iran who continue to support it.”
— Feb. 26, 2015 in U.S. News and World Report
Ambassador Nancy Soderberg represented the U.S. at the U.N. and served as deputy national security advisor. John Bradshaw is the executive director of the National Security Network.