( CNN ) The United States and its negotiating partners reached a very strong framework agreement with Iran in Lausanne , Switzerland , on Thursday that limits Iran 's nuclear program in such a way as to effectively block it from building a nuclear weapon . Expect pushback anyway , if the recent past is any harbinger . Just last month , in an attempt to head off such an agreement , House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to preemptively blast it before Congress , and 47 senators sent a letter to the Iranian leadership warning them away from a deal . The debate that has already begun since the announcement of the new framework will likely result in more heat than light . It will not be helped by the gathering swirl of dubious assumptions and doubtful assertions . Let us address some of these : . The most misleading assertion , despite universal rejection by experts , is that the negotiations ' objective at the outset was the total elimination of any nuclear program in Iran . That is the position of Netanyahu and his acolytes in the U.S. Congress . But that is not and never was the objective . If it had been , there would have been no Iranian team at the negotiating table . Rather , the objective has always been to structure an agreement or series of agreements so that Iran could not covertly develop a nuclear arsenal before the United States and its allies could respond . The new framework has exceeded expectations in achieving that goal . It would reduce Iran 's low-enriched uranium stockpile , cut by two-thirds its number of installed centrifuges and implement a rigorous inspection regime . Another dubious assumption of opponents is that the Iranian nuclear program is a covert weapons program . Despite sharp accusations by some in the United States and its allies , Iran denies having such a program , and U.S. intelligence contends that Iran has not yet made the decision to build a nuclear weapon . Iran 's continued cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency inspections is further evidence on this point , and we 'll know even more about Iran 's program in the coming months and years because of the deal . In fact , the inspections provisions that are part of this agreement are designed to protect against any covert action by the Iranians . What 's more , the rhetoric of some members of Congress has implied that the negotiations have been between only the United States and Iran ( i.e. , the 47 senators ' letter warning that a deal might be killed by Congress or a future president ) . This of course is not the case . The talks were between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council ( United States , United Kingdom , France , China and Russia ) plus Germany , dubbed the P5+1 . While the United States has played a leading role in the effort , it negotiated the terms alongside its partners . If the agreement reached by the P5+1 is rejected by Congress , it could result in an unraveling of the sanctions on Iran and threaten NATO cohesion in other areas . Another questionable assertion is that this agreement contains a sunset clause , after which Iran will be free to do as it pleases . Again , this is not the case . Some of the restrictions on Iran 's nuclear activities , such as uranium enrichment , will be eased or eliminated over time , as long as 15 years . But most importantly , the framework agreement includes Iran 's ratification of the Additional Protocol , which allows IAEA inspectors expanded access to nuclear sites both declared and nondeclared . This provision will be permanent . It does not sunset . Thus , going forward , if Iran decides to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels , monitors will be able to detect such a move in a matter of days and alert the U.N. Security Council . Many in Congress have said that the agreement should be a formal treaty requiring the Senate to `` advise and consent . '' But the issue is not suited for a treaty . Treaties impose equivalent obligations on all signatories . For example , the New START treaty limits Russia and the United States to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads . But any agreement with Iran will not be so balanced . The restrictions and obligations in the final framework agreement will be imposed almost exclusively on Iran . The P5+1 are obligated only to ease and eventually remove most but not all economic sanctions , which were imposed as leverage to gain this final deal . Finally some insist that any agreement must address Iranian missile programs , human rights violations or support for Hamas or Hezbollah . As important as these issues are , and they must indeed be addressed , they are unrelated to the most important aim of a nuclear deal : preventing a nuclear Iran . To include them in the negotiations would be a poison pill . This agreement should be judged on its merits and on how it affects the security of our negotiating partners and allies , including Israel . Those judgments should be fact-based , not based on questionable assertions or dubious assumptions .
Richard Klass : the United States framework agreement on nukes is strong , but opponents will cast doubts on this and try to obscure its facts . He says the deal would cut uranium stockpile , centrifuges , implement rigorous inspections ; it should be judged on merits , not disinformation .