What political scientists are saying about the Iran deal

I gave my two cents yesterday from the perspective of bargaining theory. Here are some other perspectives:

- Georgetown’s Matt Kroenig: “Many are heralding the agreement as an historic breakthrough, and the deal does indeed buy us time, but it is much too early to declare victory.

- Georgetown’s Colin Kahl: “Although no diplomatic agreement is perfect, the one reached in Geneva is pretty darn good.”

- A sleepy Dan Drezner (Tufts): “ Objecting to this deal now does nothing but erode your credibility for future moments of obstructionism if a comprehensive deal is negotiated. ”

- Harvard’s Stephen Walt: “Thus, the paradox: Many supporters of a diplomatic deal don’t believe the danger of a “nuclear Iran” is all that momentous, while opponents of the current deal think Iran’s nuclear program poses a grave and imminent threat.”

- Duke’s Peter Feaver: “In other words, Obama made it clear that he considered the military option to be so undesirable that he would only consider it if all other alternatives that offered any prospect of preventing Iran from developing a weapons capability had been exhausted.”