The framework agreement reached on Thursday over Iran’s nuclear programme is promising and has the potential to change the dynamics of politics in the Middle East and to open a new chapter in relations between the United States and Iran after decades of mistrust.

The negotiations were not concluded by midnight last Tuesday – the self-imposed deadline by the representatives of the 5+1 (UN Security Council members plus Germany) powers and Iran – but enough progress had been made by then for the talks to continue on Wednesday and be concluded on Thursday.

This is not a complete deal and no agreement has yet been signed but it does pave the way for detailed technical negotiations over the next few months as a result of the framework accord agreed to by the negotiating countries’ foreign ministers. The aim is to have a comprehensive agreement by June 30.

Thursday’s deal is, without doubt, an important milestone in the long history of attempts to curb Teheran’s nuclear programme. It is a victory for diplomacy, it has greatly reduced the possibility of military action against Iran, which would have had grave consequences, and it has the potential to help bring about positive change in Iran through the lifting of sanctions and the opening up of the country’s economy.

Credit should go to all the countries involved in the deal, as well as the European Union, which was represented at the talks by Federica Mogherini, the bloc’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy.

Particular credit should go to US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry whose patient belief in diplomacy paid off, despite hostile and intense opposition from a sceptical Republican-controlled Congress and a right-wing Israeli government.

On the face of it, the deal looks reasonable and it seems that Iran did make a number of concessions, in return, of course, for the lifting of sanctions which has crippled its economy. Teheran’s nuclear programme will be restrained for 10 to 15 years and international inspectors will be allowed greater oversight.

I don’t think the international community had any other choice other than to reach a (good) deal with Iran; the alternatives were military action (unthinkable) or to pull out of the negotiations which would have meant not knowing what Iran was doing.

The main highlights of last Thursday’s agreement are as follows:

Iran will reduce its amount of centrifuges (tube-shaped machines used to enrich uranium) from 19,000 to 6,104, with only 5,060 allowed for enrichment over the next 10 years.

Enriched uranium is the material used for nuclear power and nuclear bombs.

Iran’s centrifuges will only enrich uranium to 3.67 per cent, enough for nuclear energy, but not enough to build nuclear weapons. This agreement lasts 15 years and during this period Teheran has agreed not to build any new uranium enrichment facilities.

The period of time that it would take for Iran to acquire the material it needs to make one nuclear weapon, which currently stands at two to three months, is extended to one year. This arrangement is in place for 10 years.

If Iran cheats, the world will know it- US President Barack Obama

There will be no enrichment at the underground nuclear facility at Fordow for 15 years. This site was kept hidden from the international community until the US revealed it in 2009.

Iran will have to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency access to all its nuclear facilities, including to Parachin, an Iranian military site related to its nuclear programme.

The heavy water reactor at Arak is to be rebuilt so as not to produce weapons grade plutonium. Plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb.

In return for these conditions the US and EU will lift their nuclear-related sanctions on Iran once the UN verifies that Teheran has adhered to the agreement.

If Iran violates the deal the sanctions will be reintroduced. UN sanctions on Iran will also be lifted when it completes what it has promised to do.

President Obama told the media soon after an agreement had been reached that the deal was not based on “trust” and pointed out that Iran will face “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regimeever negotiated for any nuclear programme in history”.

“If Iran cheats, the world will know it,” he said. “This deal is not based on trust. It’s based on unprecedented verification.”

He added: “It is a good deal; a deal that meets our core objectives. If this framework leads to a final, comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer.”

Obama now has to deal with Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, who already told the President that his country “vehemently opposes” the deal.

He also faces fierce opposition to the deal in Congress from Republicans and has pledged to speak to congressional leaders to explain the full details of the agreement.

Obama, however, warned about the consequences of Congress opposing this nuclear agreement.

“If Congress kills this deal, not based on expert analysis and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it is the US that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse and the path to conflict will widen,” he said.

It is clear that this deal has great potential and a comprehensive accord by June 30 would really be a historic achievement. The Obama administration must listen to the concerns expressed by Congress and Israel, but should forge ahead and try hard to get a full agreement by the beginning of summer.

Such a comprehensive deal would not only be good because it prevents Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons but also because it could lead to bringing Iran in from the cold and to a major rapprochement with Washington, with obvious positive results. This would also be a huge achievement for Obama and his legacy.

Although there are many hardliners in Iran who have a lot of clout, especially in foreign and security policy, not least the country’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an Iran that is fully engaged with the world can contribute greatly to international peace and stability.

Following a nuclear deal, the US and Iran could co-operate greatly in tackling the spread of Sunni extremism, the threat of the Islamic State (where the two are de facto allies in Iraq) and Syria’s civil war.

Change will not happen overnight in Iran, and Teheran still has a long way to go in improving its human rights record and showing some flexibility in the Syrian conflict, where it has unreservedly supported the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

It also needs to engage in a constructive dialogue with Saudi Arabia, as a rapprochement between these two countries could contribute to much needed stability in the Middle East, such as in Syria and Yemen.

A full nuclear deal, however, could pave the way for a new chapter in Iran’s history, which could have a positive effect on the whole region.