BERLIN -- The only realistic option to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region is international supervision -- as far-reaching and as comprehensive as possible. But this goal, even if achieved, would satisfy neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia, both of which fear that any agreement would support Iran in its effort to establish its regional dominance. So the end result could be a de facto change of regional strategic partners by the U.S. -- a development that in fact is already becoming apparent in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq.
NEW YORK -- The agreement constitutes an important political and diplomatic milestone, and it contains more detail and is broader in scope than many anticipated. But, for all that, the text leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it resolves. In reality, major issues have yet to be settled. It is closer to the truth to say the real debate about the Iran nuclear accord is just beginning.
The real reason behind the attacks is one and only one word: Iran. Ever since the Shiites came to power in Iraq in 2004, and Jordan's King Abdullah spoke about a "Shiite Crescent" in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, a religious dictatorship of the worst kind, together with its Sunni allies in the region, which are also dictatorial regimes, have been obsessed with the Shiites and Iran.
The challenge for the Obama administration is not only to secure an agreement with Iran but to avoid the fate of the Agreed Framework. That 1994 accord failed to prepare for a breakthrough in bilateral relations or prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It has cast a long shadow over the current negotiations as well as other non-proliferation efforts.