World powers are now offering to ease sanctions on Iran if it agrees to halt its most sensitive nuclear activity. Expert Daryl Kimball urges a full diplomatic press to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear weapons line.

People love to talk about "red lines" for all sorts of challenges, and the Iranian nuclear program is no exception. The United States can, in principle, threaten stronger sanctions if Iran crosses certain red lines. It can threaten military action if Iran crosses others. But it's not clear that setting red lines—particularly in public, where failing to follow through on threats can be costly—is a productive course.

Read full answer

A take-it-or-leave-it deal by the United States on the nuclear issue is the wrong strategy, says Ray Takeyh.

Iran's reluctance to negotiate over its controversial nuclear program makes a deal with international powers unlikely, says CFR's Carla Robbins.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made these remarks at a meeting with Iran's air force on February 7, 2013, responding to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's offer of direct talks about Iran's nuclear program.

In the nuclear dispute between Iran and the United States, a grand bargain is unlikely given the level of mistrust between the two parties. What's more realistic is a modest compromise that breaches the wall of mistrust and potentially sets the stage for further-reaching arms control measures, says Ray Takeyh.

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.