Is Iran nuclear deal better than no deal? Yes: Our view

Americans awoke to the news Tuesday that, after marathon negotiations, the United States and other world powers finally have a deal with Iran — the first such accord with a nation that has been a global outlaw for three decades.

For all the complexity contained in its nearly 100 pages, the basic framework is a simple transaction that had been well telegraphed. Iran is prevented for at least 10 years from developing the capability to build a nuclear weapon, helping to stabilize a region that needs no more instability. In return, Iran gets out from under crushing economic sanctions, in phases beginning as soon as this year.

As with most of history's important diplomatic documents, of course, this agreement is flawed. Perfection in such matters is never possible, and the nature of negotiations is that neither side gets everything it wants.

Hard-liners in Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran will do their best to torpedo the agreement. But the question facing Congress, which has 60 days to review the deal, isn't whether this is a perfect document. It's whether this is better than no deal, and whether more attractive options exist.

That's where the details are important, particularly with regard to verification. How, for example, can it be guaranteed that, buried deep within a mountainside, Iran won't quietly build a nuclear capability that could allow it to hurtle toward a weapon?

The agreement entrusts this responsibility to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations body that has, more or less effectively, monitored compliance with nuclear non-proliferation. Now, IAEA scientists and investigators will have unprecedented access, with onsite inspection and around-the-clock online monitoring of known nuclear sites. Without this pact, they will have none.

If Iran cheats, there remains the option of a "snap back" to the tough sanctions that played a significant role in bringing Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.

The biggest concern about the deal, which makes this an especially tough call, is that a nasty regime in a tinderbox of a region — a regime that continues to threaten Israel's existence and hold at least three Americans — will gain billions of dollars from sanctions relief to stir up trouble.

It's worth remembering, however, that the Shiite clerics of Iran are every bit as opposed as America to the expansionist and violent attacks of the Sunni terrorists of the Islamic State. The Iranians are as likely to pour new resources into neutralizing this threat as into any anti-American, anti-Western operations.

So what has been won by these arduous negotiations? First, an option other than war to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, one that positions the U.S. as a leader in making the world a safer place with a stroke of a pen rather than at the tip of a sword.

The agreement also buys valuable time that can be used to work to end the deadly challenge from ISIL, restore some degree of normalcy in Iraq and Syria, and pursue new peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. All these tasks are more difficult with the specter of an imminent Iranian bomb hanging over the world.

President Obama faces a tough sell. But his critics — who've been wrong about the effectiveness of sanctions, and wrong about Iran's willingness to bargain, allow intrusive inspections and reduce its stock of enriched uranium — will have to make the case that this time, they're finally right.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter.