On November 24, Iran reached a deal with the P5+1 nations (five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France, plus Germany). It is a temporary agreement lasting 6 months and set to take effect on January 20, limiting Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon while easing international sanctions on Iran’s economy.

In Geneva, Switzerland the agreement was the first one in a decade of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Although the deal is considered a success for all parties, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told CNN’s State of the Union that, “There are lots of things, regrettably, that we still have to work on. Our hope is that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif want to build this different relationship, want to show in clear ways as we go forward that the program is peaceful.”

The deal restricts Iran’s uranium enrichment to 5%, which is below the required level to make nuclear weapons. With a strong belief among Iranian citizens that Iran never intended to be an aggressor, they are pleased with the eased sanctions that will improve their economy.

New Trier history teacher Steven Drajpuch agrees with the United States’ foreign policy of non-proliferation. He said that it was the best deal for U.S. under the circumstances. However, he believes that the Obama administrations is in general naïve about the reliability of non-democratic regimes, especially in the Middle East, and holds skepticism about the merit of the deal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama on the same day of the agreement to discuss the terms of it. According to CNN, Netanyahu called the deal a “historic mistake.” The Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei responded by calling Netenyahu “the rabid dog of the region” and that Israeli officials “cannot even be called humans” .

In Congress, Republicans in particular are upset over the deal. “This agreement shows other rogue states that wish to go nuclear that you can obfuscate, cheat, and lie for a decade, and eventually the United States will tire and drop key demands,” said freshman Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

Currently, Congress is close to taking veto-proof action on the deal to instill new economic sanctions on Iran, which would violate the United States’ agreement to not do so. This notion threatens diplomatic relations with Iran, and some Iran experts are saying that this further empowers hardliners who want the negotiations to fail. President Obama in response has vowed to veto any new sanctions approved by Congress.

One term of the deal is that Iran will increase inspections on the Arak nuclear facility, inspections that will be conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran will continue making nuclear fuel for domestic demands, a hot topic in negotiations that Iran maintained was their “right.” Ultimately, a compromise was reached with Tehran.

The lifting of sanctions are estimated to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in relief. Also, according to the Wall Street Journal, “P5+1 immediately will begin helping Iran repatriate about $4.2 billion in oil revenues that it hasn’t been able to access overseas as a result of the sanctions. Iran is estimated to have $50 billion in these revenues overseas, which its government has been unable to access. The funds will be returned to Iran in monthly installments of $600 million.”

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Iran will “destroy its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium – a level only a few technical steps away from bomb-grade uranium – and take other steps to roll back some of its nuclear progress” throughout the six month period of the deal.

Domestically, this deal will potentially affect gas process. Iran is part of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), which controls the world’s oil supply. New Trier Economics teacher Jennifer Niemi states that “in theory, if the U.S. were to gain access to more oil via Iran without the demand of oil and OPEC policies changing, this would marginally lower gas process in the U.S.” it should be noted that oil has to be refined, and it does not always have a direct relationship with the production of gasoline.