We being today's roundup with analysis on the historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.
Bloomberg's editors call the agreement "promising":
It's important to keep three things in mind before assessing what U.S. President Barack Obama touted as "a historic understanding with Iran": First, it is not just between the U.S. and Iran, but also with the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany. Second, it is not a done deal, as its diplomatese title ("Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program") indicates. Third, as such, it contains many ifs and to-be-determineds -- on the pace of sanctions relief, on the extent of an investigation of the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program, and so on.
All that said, the framework's scope and strength are promising. Congress should refrain from passing any legislation that would impose additional sanctions and mandates on the talks, or otherwise seek to tie the president's hands.
The New York Times:
By opening a dialogue between Iran and America, the negotiations have begun to ease more than 30 years of enmity. Over the long run, an agreement could make the Middle East safer and offer a path for Iran, the leading Shiite country, to rejoin the international community. [...]
Talking to adversaries — as President Ronald Reagan did in nuclear weapons negotiations with the Soviets and President Richard Nixon did in his opening to China — is something American leaders have long pursued as a matter of practical necessity and prudence.
Yet in today’s poisonous political climate, Mr. Obama’s critics have gone to extraordinary lengths to undercut him and any deal. Their belligerent behavior is completely out of step with the American public, which overwhelmingly favors a negotiated solution with Iran, unquestionably the best approach.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
The Miami Herald adds its take:
Can Iran be trusted to fulfill its part of the deal? Of course not, which is why the agreement requires rigid inspections by international inspectors.
Whatever anyone thinks of the outcome of the talks at this stage, the result must be weighed against the costs of failure. They could be steep.
Critics will be eager to find fault regardless of the progress that’s been made. But demanding a deal tantamount to surrender by Iran, such as having it totally dismantle its nuclear program, even for peaceful ends, was never in the cards. No deal is perfect, and neither is this one, but it should be judged on the merits and on the content — and keeping the bleak alternatives in mind.
The Denver Post makes an excellent point:
Of course, some in Washington came out against a deal long before Thursday's announcement and don't seem terribly interested in details. They've denounced the Obama administration for months for its alleged naivete in negotiating with the Iranians, saying we should have demanded they reform their international conduct first. But that is equivalent to ruling out negotiations, period.
Keep in mind, too, that these hardline critics are many of the same people who also opposed the interim agreement with Iran, which went into effect more than a year ago and has resulted in Iran moving further from building a nuclear bomb, not closer.
The Los Angeles Times:
In welcoming it, Obama said he accepted that Congress could play a useful "oversight role" but warned that "if Congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it's the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen."
We hope those words will be pondered by those members of Congress who have reflexively opposed any possible deal and who may be tempted to sabotage the negotiations. They should also take seriously another point made by the president: that the alternative to a diplomatic agreement is that "we can bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East and setting back Iran's program by a few years." The details of a final agreement matter, but so does the alternative.
USA Today:
o all of the critics, the details — short of a capitulation that's incompatible with the concept of negotiation — don't matter. They prefer the aggressive confrontation of Iran's ambitions across the region, with deep U.S. involvement and a high risk of war.
Given Iran's behavior, it is not an easy choice. But removing Iran's nuclear threat would be no small thing, and as diplomacy goes, the deal negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and counterparts from France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China appears at this early stage to be a significant success.
Over at The Atlanta Journal Constitution,
Jay Bookman says skepticism is justified, "even mandatory," but that we need to give the deal a chance:
It would be deeply, profoundly irresponsible to allow this deal to be destroyed by partisan interests and an instinct to deny Obama any accomplishment, without at least taking an open-minded look at what the deal contains and what our remaining alternatives might be. Yet some in Congress appear eager to do exactly that. It was remarkable, for example, to see 47 GOP senators write an open letter to Iranian leaders last month, warning them that the United States could not be trusted to honor any deal they might reach, before they even knew what such a deal might be.
The Indianapolis Star writes about the new "fix" to Indiana's discrimination law:
The revisions in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act restored the protections in place in Indianapolis and other communities with local human rights ordinances that cover LGBT citizens. The fact that business leaders and others rallied around the cause signaled a first, but significant, step toward the possibility of statewide protections being adopted for all gay and lesbian Hoosiers.
[...] Now we need to set out on the path to make Indiana a symbol of equality for all. That means enacting a state law that fully prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, education and public accommodations in all forms.
Let's send a resounding message, unmistakable in clarity: Indiana welcomes everyone. Indiana values everyone equally. Indiana will not tolerate discrimination against anyone.
On a final note, over at
The Detroit Free Press, the editors make the case that all of us should be paying attention to the water shortage in California:
For Californians, a fourth consecutive year of below-average rainfall and snowmelt will mean the first mandatory water restrictions in the state's history.
But those of us living in the other 49 states won't be exempt from the fallout. California farmers, who provide about half the country's fruits and vegetables, have already lost hundreds of thousands of acres of previously productive farmland. The impact on produce prices at your local grocery store will only intensify if the drought, already reckoned the worst in California's recorded history, persists.