������Ƶ

In that would dramatically limit Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama rightfully pointed to “the real and meaningful change that American leadership and diplomacy can bring — change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure.”

Defying critics who had sought to scuttle any deal with Iran — including 47 U.S. senators who took the unprecedented step in March of in an attempt to undermine negotiations — Obama led a six-nation coalition in painstakingly negotiating an accord that, in the president’s words, “cuts off every pathway to a nuclear weapon.”

Congress has 60 days to review the deal and vote to approve or reject it, but despite House Speaker John Boehner’s promise to do “everything we can to stop it,” the president would appear to have the advantage. If Congress votes against the deal, the president would veto that bill and, at this point, he would seem to have the necessary support to sustain it.

What’s more, even if defeated, the president could still lift any sanctions against Iran put in place by executive action. A congressional defeat of the accord would only maintain sanctions put in place by Congress.

With the August congressional recess looming and Republicans looking to deprive Obama of a victory in diplomacy, you can count on hearing plenty in coming weeks about the dangers of the accord and comparisons of Obama to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who infamously adopted an “appeasement” policy toward Hitler and Nazi Germany.

But even conservative critics of the president are calling such heated language an overreach. And much like the partisan belligerence aimed at Obama’s Affordable Care Act, it ignores the real advantages of the proposed deal, chief among them:

• Iran currently has a sufficient uranium stockpile to create eight to 10 nuclear bombs. The new agreement would force it to reduce that stockpile by 98 percent, keep future uranium enrichment well below the standard for a nuclear weapon and cut its current supply of nearly 20,000 centrifuges by more than two-thirds for at least 10 years.
• Iran has only one nuclear reactor site where it can produce weapons-grade plutonium, and under the deal, the site will be reconfigured to prevent that. Also, spent fuel rods from that site, which could be a source for plutonium, would be required to be shipped out of the country. Iran would not be able to build another heavy-water reactor site for 15 years.
• Ensuring that Iran, which has frequently been described as a “rogue state,” actually complies with the accord is essential, and the White House points to a level of monitoring, verification, and inspection Iran has agreed to that it calls “extraordinary and robust.” International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will be empowered to monitor every element of Iran’s participation in the agreement.

Even the most wary of the accord must acknowledge a central fact: Iran is currently no more than three months away from having sufficient materials for a nuclear bomb. Under the deal, even if Iran were to break its promises, that timeline would be expanded to at least a year, during which time the economic sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table would immediately go back in place.

As the president said Tuesday, “This deal is not built on trust, it’s built on verification.”

Hawaii’s senators echoed that sentiment, with Sen. Brian Schatz accentuating the need for vigilance to ensure Iranian compliance and Sen. Mazie Hirono underscoring her commitment to preventing Iran from developing or obtaining nuclear weaponry. Clearly, even administration supporters are approaching this deal with clear-eyed realism.

A defanged Iran poses less of a threat to its regional peers and removes the threat of an erratic nuclear power as a catalyst for a Middle East arms race that no one wants to see.

Still, it must be acknowledged that the agreement was negotiated along with partners Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia and already enjoys broad support from other foreign nations. Notably absent from that group are Israel and Saudi Arabia, which have their own interests in power and influence in the ever volatile Middle East.

But the Middle East is the most likely beneficiary of the deal: A defanged Iran poses less of a threat to its regional peers and removes the threat of an erratic nuclear power as a catalyst for a Middle East arms race that no one wants to see.

Make no mistake, there are big benefits in the agreement for Iran. As it demonstrates compliance with the accord, economic sanctions against Iran would be lifted in stages, and Iran would eventually gain access to an estimated $100 billion in frozen assets. Likewise, its oil sales, curtailed by sanctions for years, would flood international markets, lowering costs for consumers but enriching Iran in the process.

Concerns that a wealthier Iran would emerge from the constraints of the nuclear agreement in 10 to 15 years more financially capable of causing trouble than before are real. But rather than making a case for further isolation of Iran as it methodically moves toward nuclear weapon capabilities, they point to the need to ensure inspection is rigorously enforced and to continue diplomatic efforts to bring Iran into the global fraternity of nations.

In arguing for approval on Tuesday, President Obama acknowledged the “difficult history” between the United States and Iran, but said change is possible, and offered a final message as much to the Iranian people as to the members of Congress now reviewing the bill.

“The path of violence and rigid ideology; a foreign policy based on threats to attack your neighbors or eradicate Israel — is a dead end,” said the president. “A different path — one of tolerance, and peaceful resolution of conflict — leads to more integration into the global economy, more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.”

If the video images of ordinary Iranians celebrating in the streets on Tuesday are any evidence, the promise of exactly such a future is powerful, indeed. In fact, it may be a more powerful motivator for real and lasting change than economic sanctions could ever be.

Congress should embrace that promise as it reviews this carefully crafted accord, and in the interests of a world made safer from the threat of nuclear weapons, approve it without delay.