Experts Support the Emerging Nuclear Deal with Iran

Click here to view and download this document as a pdf.

Amb. Brooke Anderson; Prof. Matthew Bunn, Harvard University; Amb. Robert Gallucci; and 27 other nuclear security experts “The agreement will strengthen U.S. security and that of our partners. Rigorous monitoring measures will remain in place not just throughout the long duration of the agreement but even after the core limits of the agreement expire, helping ensure that any movement toward nuclear weapons will be detected.” [4/6/15]

Madeleine Albright, Fmr. Secretary of State; Brent Scowcroft, Fmr. National Security Advisor; Fmr. Senator Carl Levin; Fmr. Senator Richard Lugar; Adm. William Fallon (Ret.); and over 50 signatories “We call on the U.S. Congress to take no action that would impede further progress or undermine the American negotiators’ efforts to complete the final comprehensive agreement. The Congress should examine the announced framework, asking itself whether the potential for a comprehensive, verifiable accord is preferable to the current standoff with Iran or other alternatives as a means to ensure that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon.” [4/6/15]

Sandy Berger, Fmr. National Security Advisor “The present agreement… can substantially reduce the ability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon over the next ten years or more and also creates a dynamic that could be a game changer in the combustible Middle East.” [4/5/15]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Fmr. National Security Advisor The framework is “a victory for President Obama and geopolitical stability.” [4/3/15]

Nicholas Burns, Fmr. Lead US Negotiator on Iran It is “a sensible step forward for Iran and the west. This tentative progress is testament to the power of diplomacy.” [4/3/15]

Sister Simone Campbell, NETWORK; Bishop Mary Ann Swenson; United Methodist Church; Rev. Jim Wallis; Sojourners; and over 50 Christian leaders “The framework… is the best path to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. This path is better than the alternatives. To engage in military strikes would be, at best, premature, as well as highly unpredictable and morally irresponsible in creating yet another U.S. war.” [4/16/15]

Fmr. Ambassadors Ryan Crocker, Thomas Pickering, Frank G. Wisner, and William Luers “Success would represent a victory of America’s 35-year bipartisan policy toward Iran, be a triumph of America’s commitment to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and eliminate one of most serious potential threats to the security of our friends in the region.” [7/19/14]

Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney (Ret.)- “The sides have made tangible progress to date on a range of issues. If we can reach a deal Iran that will ensure Iran does not have nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors—that’s worth waiting for.” [11/24/14]

Stuart Eizenstat, Fmr. Deputy Treasury Secretary “No deal is not a success, because it means an unrestrained use of centrifuges, the Iranian plutonium plant at Arak continuing, no intrusive inspections, no elimination of 20-percent enriched uranium, and less likelihood of eliminating weaponization. But the alternative (to a deal) is nothing but thorns. It would almost force a military reaction, which even under the best circumstances it would set back Iran two to three years and have ripple effects that would tremendously harm Israel.” [10/23/14]

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (Ret.) “Lawmakers should vote to approve an agreement that achieves its purpose: to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. The only viable alternatives are unacceptable.” [6/25/15]

Hadi Ghaemi, International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran “Even individuals who are themselves survivors of human rights abuses in Iran and former political prisoners there strongly support the talks and hope for a successful agreement, contradicting the notion held by some opponents of the negotiations that human rights concerns in Iran should preclude support for the negotiations.” [11/21/14]

Richard Haass, The Council of Foreign Relations “I’ll be honest, I am pleasantly surprised by the substance of the deal. As a skeptic, I’ve to say, it’s a good deal.” [4/2/15]

Efraim Halevy, Fmr. Director of Mossad “Obama was right, Iran capitulated. Netanyahu should accept the American offer of dialogue on the draft agreement reached in Lausanne, instead of signaling his intent to scupper it out of hand.” [4/6/15]

Gen. Michael Hayden, Fmr. CIA and NSA Director “It’s more than I thought we would demand, so in that sense I’m heartened… I freely admit, plans B, C, D, and E aren’t all that attractive.” [4/3/15]

Olli Heinonen, Fmr. Chief Inspector of IAEA “It appears to be a fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters.” [4/2/15]

Fmr. Senator George Mitchell“Although dozens of countries are capable of developing nuclear weapons, only nine have so far chosen to do so. Iran must not be the tenth. There are two ways to achieve that goal: by negotiation or through war.” [5/18/15]

Admiral Mike Mullen- “There is no more credible path of reducing the likelihood of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon than this potential deal. Those who say the risks are too high with the current deal offer no constructive path forward save the high potential for war.” [4/16/15]

Fmr. Defense Secretary William Perry, Fmr. Navy Secretary Sean O’Keefe, Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.), and Fmr. Undersecretary of the Army Joe Reeder “This agreement could avoid an all-out arms race in the world’s most volatile region. If we’re ever likely to see an acceptable agreement, this is it. Let’s not let this perishable opportunity get away.” [2/24/15]

Gary Samore, Harvard University- “Congress would be wise to stop threatening precipitous sanctions legislation if an agreement is not reached by June 30. Perversely, such threats strengthen Iran’s hand by putting pressure on the U.S. negotiators to make concessions to avoid congressional action that would blow up the talks. Instead, the U.S. should present a common front and let time work on its side.” [4/3/15]

Amos Yadlin, Fmr. Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence “Considering that Iran now has 19,000 centrifuges, the agreement provides quite a good package. One has to think what might have happened if, as aspired to by Netanyahu and Steinitz, negotiations had collapsed. Had that happened, Iran could have decided on a breakout, ignored the international community, refused to respond to questions about its arsenal, continued to quickly enrich and put together a bomb before anyone could have had time to react. And therefore, with this in mind, it’s not a bad agreement.” [4/3/15]


Compiled by Angela Miller, Lindsay Getschel, and Caitlin Hill.