Halting Iran's progress toward a bomb will require the United States to make credible promises and credible threats simultaneously -- an exceedingly difficult trick to pull off.

Reza Aslan, CFR's adjunct senior fellow, leads a conversation on Iran and its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the past, U.S. officials have been less than eager to define a specific redline for the Iranian threat. While setting a March deadline could provide more certainty and coercive leverage to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA, it also places U.S. "credibility" on the line, says Micah Zenko.

The IAEA Board released the Director General's quarterly report on progress of the NPT Safeguards Agreement with Iran, on November 16, 2012. The report provides an update on the nuclear situation in Iran since the last report of August 2012.

Deterring Iran's nuclear weapons program is a foreign policy priority for the United States. Candidates for the 2012 presidential elections debate the best options, including a military strike.

The drawn-out talks between Iran and the P5 +1 nations over Iran's nuclear program are expected to resume after the U.S. presidential elections, says veteran arms control expert Daryl Kimball.

Matthew C. Waxman argues that international law still plays a powerful role in justifying or delegitimizing the case for military action. Just like in the Cuban missile crisis, the United States needs to present a plausible case for self-defense in order to strike Iran.

In the case of Iran, Richard N. Haass says, "Diplomacy needs to be move faster if is not to be overtaken by Iran's march to a nuclear weapon—and, with it, by the West's march to conflict."

Ray Takeyh argues that if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants to ensure the Islamic republic's revolutionary precepts survive him, China is a model to avoid.

Sanctions historically work to subject a country's people, rather than its government, to poverty and undermine the populations welfare, as is ocurring in Iran right now.

Economic woes caused by sanctions and mismanagement, coupled with an upcoming political transition, have created new uncertainties in Iran, says expert Farideh Farhi.

Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi discusses Iranian foreign policy in the Middle East.

Micah Zenko says even though telling the United States that it should be more scared of Iran has failed so far, Israeli officials will continue to sound the alarm about a nuclear-armed Tehran, with the ultimate objective of changing America's threat perception.

Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III say that because a nuclear-armed Iran is a real threat to the United States, the president does have reason to argue for his constitutional authority to use force against Iran, but legislative approval would give him stronger legal and political ground to do so.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave these remarks to the UN General Assembly on September 26, 2012.

Though Iran might be capable of making a nuclear weapon soon, whether it has decided to is up for debate and calls into question the pressure for immediate military action, says expert David Albright.

Ray Takeyh argues, "The United States will make genuine progress with Iran only when moderate leaders assume greater control of the state. An interim accord may provide time, but that time must be used to broaden the contours of Iran's political system."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave this statement regarding Iran on September 14, 2012.

A nuclear-armed Iran would not make the Middle East more secure, argues Colin Kahl; it would yield more terrorism and pose a risk of a nuclear exchange.

Robert D. Blackwill, CFR's Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, discusses the issues and contingencies surrounding Iran's nuclear program.