The New York Times

There is no doubt that the negotiations between the major powers and Iran over its nuclear program have been productive. All the nations involved — the United States, Britain, France, China, Germany, Iran, even Russia — appear committed to reaching a deal that will go beyond November’s interim agreement and produce a permanent one. The chief negotiators completed a third round of talks in Vienna on Wednesday and plan to meet again on May 13, after which they expect to begin drafting actual text. They hope to wrap it all up by July 20.

As positive as that sounds, it would be naïve to understate how hard it will be to remove the threat of Iran’s producing a nuclear weapon and begin to ease three decades of hostility between Tehran and Washington.
Negotiators, who have revealed few details about their bargaining, said this week that significant gaps remained on core issues. In November, the two sides reached a six-month agreement under which Iran suspended some nuclear activities in exchange for modest relief from sanctions that have hurt Iran’s economy. The fact that both Iran and the major powers appear to be fulfilling their commitments under that interim agreement is reassuring.

In a final deal, the powers want Iran to permanently pare back its nuclear activities so that it will not be able to quickly produce a nuclear bomb. That would mean reducing its centrifuges and curbing operations at facilities that are designed to produce nuclear fuel. In return, there would be substantially more sanctions relief for Iran’s battered economy. Despite the obvious benefits, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sounded pretty implacable on Wednesday when he said, “We will not cede any of our gains in nuclear research and development.”

Meanwhile, hard-line forces on both sides have been working to undermine any deal. Israel and some members of Congress are insisting that Iran must abandon all nuclear enrichment activities, even for nonweapons purposes. That would be ideal, but it is unrealistic, and insisting on it would scuttle any chance of an agreement. The hard-liners know that, which puts them in the curious position of making a huge political fuss about Iran’s nuclear program while blocking any realistic diplomatic solution. This could cause problems for President Obama as he tries to push talks forward.

The latest controversy centers on the nomination of Hamid Aboutalebi as Iran’s new ambassador to the United Nations. When he was in his 20s, Mr. Aboutalebi reportedly served as an interpreter for the students who took over the American embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

In the looking-glass world of Iranian-American relations, Mr. Aboutalebi is a moderate at home and is opposed by Iran’s hard-liners. Here, spurred by Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, who called Mr. Aboutalebi a terrorist, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, Congress voted to deny him a visa. Without signing the bill, which is of unclear legality, President Obama set an unfortunate precedent on Friday by saying he would deny Mr. Aboutalebi a visa anyway.

As the host for the United Nations, the United States is supposed to admit whomever a country designates as its ambassador, barring a direct national security threat. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president, were all allowed to visit. Still, the appointment was a real misstep by President Hassan Rouhani. It’s hard to believe he does not know how acutely the embassy takeover affected Americans and did not realize that he was handing hard-liners a new issue. But none of this should divert the two sides from pushing hard to secure a final nuclear deal.

If the major powers and Iran can do that, they will create an opportunity for dealing with other important challenges, including Afghanistan, drug trafficking, Syria and Iran’s support for extremist groups. The consequences of failure are equally enormous.