President Obama announced the success of intense negotiations with Iran on a two-year nuclear energy plan. The almost 20-month bout of mediations came to close last Tuesday, July 14, after promising dialogues with China, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and representatives from the United Nations (UN).

International relations with the Middle East are on a long road to recovery with no real end in sight. However, an Iran nuclear deal with the United States and allies means that the world is not only safer, but also one step closer to peace.

So, what does this agreement mean for the international community, and how does the arrangement affect domestic and foreign affairs?

In a televised national address, President Obama said that the deal insures that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be able to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear plan calls for Iran to remove “98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium.”

In addition, he said Iran would remove about 67 percent of installed centrifuges and replace a minimal amount with centrifuges unable to enrich uranium past four percent.

In effect, Iran will be unable to produce the raw plutonium and enriched uranium necessary for a nuclear proficiency, and be incapable of transporting the materials to known or covert storing facilities.

Additionally, the deal allows for international supervision and high surveillance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the form of regular and readily available safety verifications, centrifuge-level confirmations and transportation routes.

Lastly, President Obama noted that some of the former requirements would be implemented forever, up to 25 years, up to the life of the nuclear reactor and, in some cases, lasting only 15 years.

Essentially, the P5+1 nations – China, France, United States, Britain, Russia and Germany – consolidated under direction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to halt Iranian nuclear development and to ensure that tensions in the Middle East do not end amid the use of highly dangerous and advanced weaponry.

Now, is the agreement advantageous, or is the arrangement and stipulations malicious?

Much like each decision a government pursues, this too is met with trepidation from both sides of the isle, and rightly so.

Initially, the nuclear deal is one of the first steps toward calming relations with the Middle East, albeit built on verification, not trust.

Iranian stockpiles of nuclear energy may not be directly correlated with terrorism; however, the possibility of mass destruction through malevolent organizations via nuclear weapons – regardless of the target – requires nullification in the early stages.

Moreover, while Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised the deal, he was cited in a New York Times article and said ““We will always support the oppressed Palestinian nation, Yemen, Syrian government and people, Iraq, and oppressed Bahraini people, and also the honest fighters of Lebanon and Palestine.”

Khamenei went on to say that that the agreement did not mark the end of Iranian hostilities with the United States, or U.S. allies (i.e. Israel).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was opposed to the deal in the beginning, and not too pleased with the arrangement. He tweeted that the “deal is a historic mistake,” and that too many concessions were given up that would have stopped Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

The right wing of congress also echoed Netanyahu’s sentiment – surprise, surprise. In his statement on the Iran Nuclear deal, House Majority Speaker John Boehner said, “… the president has abandoned his own goals.”

Boehner said the “’deal’ will hand Iran billions in sanctions relief while giving it time and space to reach a break-out threshold to produce a nuclear bomb.”

Congress has 60 days to vote on the approval or denial of the proposed agreement. Congress is urging the president to give them proper treatment, time and capabilities while votes are tallied and as decisive members of government make up their minds.