Today in her blog, CNN's Christiane Amanpour offered a rose-colored glasses analysis about the recent nuclear agreement with Iran and calls for "concessions on all sides." She speaks of a Western intelligence official who called the deal significant, but then offers this caution:

Yet the official predicts a much more difficult set of negotiations ahead, which are aimed at finally settling Iran’s nuclear parameters as a limited and entirely peaceful program, in return for a total lifting of sanctions. This will require each side giving up much more than they have done this weekend in Geneva.

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling this deal a "historic mistake," Amanpour said the Obama Administration has a "tough sales job ahead" with Israel. She harkened back to the Bush Administration for context:

The deal is not “historic,” as some have said. In 2003, under the leadership of reform President Mohammad Khatami, Iran completely froze its nuclear program for about two years. Hassan Rouhani, now President, was then Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.

So why was a deal not struck earlier?

Well for starters the George W. Bush Administration rejected an offer from Khatami to negotiate a final accord, and then the much-reviled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President. He immediately struck a highly combative tone, making the idea of negotiations all but impossible, along with his anti-Israel rhetoric and his anti-Semitic views.

This only amplifies why negotiations may not be possible. It has been widely reported that even with previous sanctions in place, Iran has increased its number of centrifuges from 160 to 19,000 in only ten years. This flies in the face of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who is quoted as saying:

Iran is committed to giving up the prospect of nuclear weapons: it's perfectly clear.

For historical context, it was only September 2013 when Iran's President Rouhani said:

I declare that only if there is political will, if there is mutual respect and mutual interest, and only if the rights of Iran's people are ensured, can we guarantee the peaceful character of Iran's nuclear program.

The only thing that is clear here is that with the increased number of centrifuges and President Rouhani's caveat of a peaceful nuclear program, sanctions and negotiations have not yet worked.

Amanpour pointed out that the Obama Administration has no intention of another Middle Eastern war and concludes that besides some Israeli strike:

All that’s left is a negotiated settlement – which will necessitate even more painful concessions on all sides.

That those "painful concessions" will almost certainly include allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, change the balance of power in the region for ever, and perhaps spark a regional war seem of no concern to Amanpour.