2. How does the deal, as it is currently being understood, divert Iran from its goal of building a nuclear-weapons infrastructure?

I asked Mark Dubowitz, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and a (hawkish) expert on the Iranian program. He said: “This deal would allow Iran to keep in place its entire nuclear infrastructure and maintain a still dangerous uranium breakout capacity with more than sufficient centrifuges to move, at a time of its choice to weaponize uranium. It does nothing to address centrifuge manufacturing, which is the key element to Iran’s secret enrichment program.” The deal — again, we haven’t seen official details yet — would also allow Iran to “to continue work on its plutonium nuclear pathway.”

3. Does an interim deal remove pressure on Iran to reach a final deal, one that presumably shuts down for good key elements of the Iranian program?

It would seem that an interim deal would both weaken the world’s commitment to sanctions and the West’s leverage in negotiations, except if President Obama is stalwart about reapplying sanctions should Iran veer from the straight path.