Ephraim Asculai writes that while the framework agreement between Iran and the P5+1 has many notable achievements, several key issues and loopholes remain unresolved. Specifically, he notes that issues remain regarding the final number of Iranian centrifuges maintained, the construction of further reactors, and possible military dimensions to prior nuclear activities. He also raises concerns about the verification mechanisms in the agreement, and the lack of discussion of Iran's ballistic missile program in the final agreement, and urges that the final agreement shore up these loopholes.

Nicholas Burns, Professor of Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School, writes in The Financial Times that the pursuit of finalizing an agreement with Iran based on the recently released framework is work undertaking. Specifically, he argues that while the current agreement does not meet prior demands of a negotiated solution with Iran, it is unrealistic for the United States and its allies to return to old demands, and that the current agreement meets American objectives of drastically pushing back any Iranian actions to build a nuclear weapon. He cautions, however, against seeing the agreement as a harbinger of major rapprochement with Iran, and notes that American and Iranian interests still do not align on crucial issues of regional security.  

Matthew Bunn, Professor of Practice and Co-Principle Investigator of the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center, writes in The National Interest that if we consider a "good deal" to be an agreement that reduces Iran's chances of building a nuclear bomb more than alternative options, then the current framework announced at Lausanne is a good deal. He argues that the deal includes stringent technical terms that will make any breakout attempt much more detectable, and also notes that politically the deal decrease the immediate military threat to Iran, diminishing the need for a nuclear bomb, while sanctions relief will create economic disincentives to returning to the nuclear confrontation. Finally, he suggests that the alternatives to a deal, such as a return to sanctions and pressure or a military attack, are much less likely at this point of achieving the goal of an Iran without a nuclear weapon.

Gary Samore, Executive Director for Research at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, writes in Foreign Affairs that while the shape of the framework agreement between Iran and the P5+1 is generally solid, significant work remains to be done before the negotiations are complete. Specifically, he highlights questions about the status of Iran's Low Enriched Uranium stockpiles, the limits on Iranian enrichment, the status of the Fordo nuclear facility, implementation of monitoring and verification, and the timing of sanctions. While he writes that these issues are not insurmountable, they will require tough negotiations, which would be best undertaken by a united front between the United States, Congress, and Israel.

What are the key elements of the framework nuclear accord with Iran? How will the accord constrain Iran’s nuclear program? Five charts below, created by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, illustrate the key points of the deal. 

Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, writes in The Atlantic that, if the nuclear accord with Iran announced yesterday is implemented, “ a state that currently has seven bombs’ worth of enriched uranium and 19,000 centrifuges, and is six weeks away from breaking out to produce the core of a bomb, will have been pushed back materially on each of these fronts.”

Iran Matters has translated the Iranian Foreign Ministry's official "fact sheet" (titled "Summary of the Package of Joint Solutions for Reaching a Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action") about yesterday's nuclear accord, which has only been published in Farsi. Translated by Payam Mohseni. (Note: Bolded text is from original)

Olli Heinonen, Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Simon Henderson, Baker Fellow at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, set out key information on the Iran nuclear negotiations in this glossary of terms, which defines the crucial technical terms necessary to understand the Iranian nuclear program.

Nuclear negotiators closed in on the March 31 deadline for a political framework agreement, with both sides reportedly continuing to disagree on several central issues, Iran-backed militias take a back seat in operations in Tikrit and come under attack in Yemen, and more in this week’s Belfer Iran Brief, covering March 17-30, 2015.

Mansour Salsabili, Associate with the International Security and Managing the Atom Programs at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, writes in The National Interest that Iran has moved away from its original revisionist roots, and its current foreign policy in fact speaks to its moderation as a regional power. He points to several examples in Iranian behavior, including the professional relations between Iranian and U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, the condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo shootings by Iranian President Rouhani, and support for the campaign against the Taliban in 2001, as demonstrating Iran's more moderate foreign policy, and argues that the continued growth in influence for young, urbanized and generally tolerant Iranians will further impact the country's posture, making a nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 a beneficial one for maintaining peace in the region while supporting domestic reform in Iran.