When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Iran Deal: Obama's Smart Bet To Break The Status Quo

U.S. President Barack Obama on April 2
U.S. President Barack Obama on April 2


PARIS — The deal reached in Lausanne on Iran's nuclear program is a historic breakthrough. Or at least it will be if it leads to a “final” agreement by the June 30 deadline, which is by no means certain. For the first time in 12 years, when the West's talks with Tehran began, the precise framework of a settlement to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weaponry has been established, setting the stage for a major success in the global battle against nuclear proliferation.

The doubting chorus should try to imagine what would be the alternatives to a deal with Iran. They’re all catastrophic. The regime of ever-harsher sanctions to which the Iranians have been subjected has kept it from pursuing a program that represents a clear violation of its commitments as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The burden of sanctions has without a doubt led Tehran to the table of negotiations, but it never dissuaded it from seeking to increase its uranium enrichment capabilities, the path that leads to the atomic bomb.

In that matter, there can be no status quo. To play the waiting game is to take the risk of the Islamic Republic of Iran growing ever more capable of enriching fissile material for military purposes.

The other option is war, air strikes on Iranian installations, with the risk of retaliation in the Gulf. In other words, the risk of adding more fuel to a region that’s already ablaze. Not to mention that neither war nor the status quo would guarantee that Iran doesn’t eventually acquire the bomb. On the contrary.

President Barack Obama was right to relaunch the negotiations, with the support of the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — China, France, Britain, Russia — and that of Germany. At the cost of a major concession to Tehran, which will be allowed to enrich uranium domestically but at a low level, they fulfilled their goal to place the Iranian program under such obligations that the international community would have one year to detect whether the deal is being violated, and to react.

The Lausanne deal, which is expected to be finalized in June, will at least be a much-welcome non-proliferation agreement in a Middle East that already counts at least two nuclear powers that haven’t signed up to the NPT, Israel and Pakistan, and certainly doesn’t need another.

Obama is even more ambitious than that. He sees in the deal the beginning of a possible normalization of the U.S.’ relations with Iran, frozen for 35 years, which would lead to Tehran opening itself to the West and therefore becoming more moderate. Such an evolution would be a true stabilizing factor in the region.

We’re not there yet, far from it. A strange coalition, made of Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, Israel and the Republican majority in the U.S. Congress, has taken shape to denounce a deal that they say will reinforce Tehran and make it even more expansionist. They have been “demonizing” Iran, making it the No. 1 strategic threat in the region, well ahead of ISIS jihadists.

Barack Obama will need as much tenacity to reassure them as he showed in seeking the Lausanne agreement. It’s important that he wins the second round of the political and diplomatic fight that has only just begun.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Why The World Still Needs U.S. Leadership — With An Assist From China

Twenty years of costly interventions and China's economic ascent have robbed the United States of its global supremacy. It is time for the two biggest powers to work together, to help the world.

Photograph of Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden walking side by side in the Filoli Estate in the U.S. state of California​

Nov. 15, 2023: Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden take a walk after their talks in the Filoli Estate in the U.S. state of California

María Ángela Holguín*


BOGOTÁ — The United States is facing a complex moment in its history, as it loses its privileged place in the world. Since the Second World War, it has been the world's preeminent power in economic and political terms, helping rebuild Europe after the war and through its growing economy, aiding the development of a significant part of the world.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

Its model of democracy, long considered exemplary around the world, has gone through a rough patch, thanks to excessive polarization and discord. This has cost it a good deal of its leadership, unity and authority.

How much authority does it have to chide certain countries on democracy, as it does, after such outlandish incidents as the assault on Congress in January 2021? The fights we have seen over electing a new speaker of the House of Representatives or backing the administration's foreign policy are simply incredible.

In Ukraine's case, President Biden failed to win support for the aid package for which he was hoping, even if there is a general understanding that if Russia wins this war, Europe's stability would be at risk. It would mean the victory of a longstanding enemy.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest