Because the Treaty on the Iranian nuclear is positive

The desirability of a negotiated and its relative success with Iran, have been said many words, which represented different perspectives and often opposed, including the need to resume relations with Tehran and the West, a very important issue, but that is secondary to the real nature of the matter. The problem was not and is not whether Iran will have a nuclear weapon since, but give way to a military option, not convenient to any regional player, including Israel, Tehran will be able to get to be able to have the necessary technology for the construction of the atomic bomb. Then this possibility must be reckoned safely. As was to be dealt with this emergency? The proposed solution several times from Tel Aviv to bomb Iranian sites could be viable to price too high to be absorbed by the whole world; a cost that could bring the level of world development, both economically and diplomatically, to a condition where it was virtually impossible to recover. On the other hand provide the opportunity for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, in this geopolitical context, it was too risky. Tehran is still undergoing internal politics, where the power of the religious Orthodox, combined with that of the military, did not provide sufficient guarantees for the presence of a new atomic power in the Middle Eastern context. Still too limited the influence of the reformists, despite their growth, it seems incontrovertible. The strategy of Obama and Kerry, was then to postpone the achievement of the construction of the Iranian atomic bomb, to allow, when the time comes to find a changed international situation. It is only a hope or something that is based on probabilities consistent because it will come true? Certainly the future is not predictable in some sense and absolute, but the fact of allowing a growth policy of the reformers, through the end of the sanctions, which will allow economic growth that can spread more wealth in Iranian society, is a secure element in support of this thesis. Also reopen a dialogue with Iran, also dictated by contingent cooperation against the Islamic state and to develop wider political and diplomatic sense is an additional stabilizing factor in future. The main intention of the negotiations was to avert a regime too influenced by the religious and ultra-Orthodox from military still imbued Khomeini ideology might have available almost immediately the atomic bomb. The time interval of ten years seems, on the contrary, sufficiently long for it to become concrete, both the internal change, and the international. Seen in this light, the criticism Israeli and Saudi appear specious, substantially exclusive defense of their positions. As for Israel, for the truth, the opposition to the treaty belongs to the government and the parties that support him, but it is not shared by large sectors of society, which, in fact, share the view of the American president and see it as an opportunity to signature of the agreements. Paradoxically, but not too much, is even more rigid position of Saudi Arabia, which threatens its regional supremacy, and also, ultimately, its privileged relationship with the United States, as well as economic repercussions arising from the return of the marketing of oil Iranian. However, there are good chances that the future structure of the country Iran may be modified such that it can be integrated in a dialectic different from the current one in international relations. Conversely, a failure to approve the results of the negotiations, Iran will remain under sanctions and the reformists will have no chance of winning the election and the process to get atomic weapon will be accelerated in a state of internal power very hostile to 'West, that potentially trigger conflicts whose outcome, whatever happens, it will have repercussions are difficult to predict. To avoid this scenario, the only way forward is that the ratification of the Vienna negotiations and diplomatic work to allow the development of different relationships with Tehran.