On Sunday, an interim agreement was reached between Iran and a U.S.-led coalition called P5+1 that would limit Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The six-month deal, which limits Iran’s future uranium production, is a step in the right direction. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed serious concern with the agreement, worrying that it doesn’t go far enough in reducing Iran’s existing uranium stockpile and uranium enrichment infrastructure. However, his publicized fears have detracted from the merits of the agreement.

The agreement has been designed to restrict Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons while relieving some of the restrictions that have crippled the country’s economy. Iran has agreed to use half of its 20 percent enriched uranium for its Tehran Research Reactor while reducing the enrichment of the remaining half to under 5 percent. In exchange, the P5+1, which includes China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, will not implement any new nuclear sanctions on Iran for the duration of the agreement and also lift certain sanctions on Iran’s petrochemicals, automobiles and precious metals.

Despite the deal’s limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, Netanyahu condemned it as a “historic mistake” that benefits the “most dangerous regime in the world.” His claims are unfounded, if not completely outrageous. Had this deal not been reached, Iran would have been able to strengthen its program. Furthermore, Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon, and there is insufficient evidence that it is actively building one. Meanwhile, Israel has 80 in its arsenal. Netanyahu’s claim reflects Israel’s contempt for the agreement, which focuses on impeding Iran’s future capabilities rather than dismantling the progress it has already made. But, as President Barack Obama said, the accord signed in Geneva, Switzerland is a necessary first step. Rather than removing all of Iran’s nuclear capabilities at once, the United States sees a need for implementing a gradual process.

Netanyahu’s extreme response to the deal may have been incited by the Obama administration’s decision to keep Israel out of the loop. The United States would not have been able to reach a temporary resolution with Iran had Israel been involved in the decision-making process. Israel’s goal of obstructing the Iranian nuclear establishment is unrealistic. Similarly, we cannot hope to attain the U.S. objective in achieving the cautious disablement of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The short-term agreement is a step toward long-term peace.