"...[B]y lifting sanctions, the deal would create a flow of very real benefits to Iran—including to some of the most powerful players in the Iranian regime—which they would not want to put at risk with clandestine bomb efforts....the deal would make clear that compromise with the West that really does contribute to Iran's economic development is possible, strengthening advocates of compromise in Tehran. Finally, the agreement's 10–25 year duration means that, if successful, an entire generation of Iranians will come of age in an era of reduced tension and confrontation with the West—creating new and powerful political constituencies against returning to confrontation on the nuclear issue."

The Israeli writer Ari Shavit had a piece in the November 20 New York Times that asserted that the proposed first-stage deal with Iran “would guarantee” that Iran would eventually build a nuclear bomb.  I think he’s completely wrong, for reasons I explained in an op-ed of my own in the Christian Science Monitor.

"Some form of negotiated agreement, if it can be achieved, is the “least bad” option for U.S. interests—but is likely to have to include some continuing enrichment in Iran. There are real security risks in agreeing to permit some ongoing enrichment in Iran, but if appropriately managed, these security risks are less than those created by a military strike or allowing Iran to continue unfettered enrichment with no agreement."

"...If Iran is willing to agree to a deal under which it would remain legally committed not to build nuclear weapons, no more centrifuges would be added, and extensive verification would be allowed, that would be far better for US security than letting insistence on zero propel a drift toward confrontation. After all, failure to reach agreement would mean no limit on Iran's centrifuges, and a drift in the direction of sanctions and potential military strikes, with all the dangers they would hold...."

Matthew Bunn argues that placing the centrifuges at Natanz in one of two "standby" modes offered a way out of the current stand-off over suspension.

"...Rather than rushing toward confrontation with all its risks, all sides must put historic antipathies aside and find face-saving solutions. To give the Iranian advocates of compromise a chance to succeed, the United States and the other major powers need to put offers on the table that will show the people of Iran that nuclear restraint and compliance will put their nation on a path toward peace and prosperity."