Last Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Geneva to attend talks between the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Zarif, and the foreign policy leaders of numerous world powers. The talks centered around the international sanctions levied against Iran for its nuclear program.

While Iran maintains that its nuclear efforts are working only to provide nuclear energy, the United States and many other countries fear that Iran could very well have its sights set on nuclear weaponry. The Geneva talks were intended to result in a suspension of further nuclear efforts by Iran in exchange for a lift on some of the sanctions currently in place.

While it was hoped that Kerry’s unscheduled trip to Switzerland was an indication that an agreement was forthcoming, it soon became clear that, although there was progress, the two sides had not quite closed the gap on negotiations. However, talks will resume Nov. 21 with Iran and the P5+1 powers (United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and Germany.)

Some have criticized that potential agreement, arguing that it would be a resounding loss for the western powers. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the the Iranian position in the talks, “They are paying nothing because they are not reducing in any way their nuclear enrichment capability.”

As the prime minister claims, the sanctions in place against Iran are unquestionably damaging their economy. Lifting even some of the sanctions would certainly be of benefit to Iran. It is less clear that the other countries involved would benefit substantially from Iran agreeing to halt its nuclear program, either in whole or in part. Concerns over this are shared by many around the world, including those in Congress.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., said Wednesday: “The Iranian regime hasn’t paused its nuclear program. … Why should we pause our sanctions efforts as the administration is pressuring Congress to do?”

Well, Mr. Royce, because we could actually get the Iranian regime to pause its nuclear program. As Kerry said: “We put these sanctions in place in order to be able to put us in the strongest position possible to be able to negotiate. We now are negotiating.”

The sanctions to ostensibly be lifted themselves will be “completely reversible,” according to a statement made by the White House’s Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest last week and would return if it is found that Iran did not hold up its end of the bargain.

In addition to questions over the true commitment Iran would have to new agreements, there are worries that such agreements do not fully address the problems that need to be dealt with. For example, a potential deal will likely not involve a reduction in Iran’s nuclear capabilities, merely a freezing of their current efforts.

While this is true, the potential agreements would be the first step of many needed to resolve a very complex issue. It cannot reasonably be expected that Iran will simply give up its entire nuclear program while international sanctions are in full effect.

It is not enough to only consider the point of view of the United States and other countries, such as Israel. While we have legitimate concerns on global security, we must understand that Iranians have concerns of their own.

In the same way that many outside of Iran are skeptical of agreements their government might make, many inside Iran are surely skeptical of the international community. If we wish to negotiate a resolution to issues with Iran, we are going to have to have small steps at first — and not torpedo a potential deal because it is less than perfect.

Trust must be built up between Iran and countries like the United States if we are to have any hope at all of preventing them from becoming a nation with nuclear weapons.

The potential deal to be brokered in Geneva would do just that. By removing some of the sanctions against Iran, an increased sense of cooperation will be fostered with Iranian economic interests. At the same time, leaving in place the most severe restrictions, such as the banking and oil sanctions, ensures that Iran will have continued incentives to keep negotiating.

Criticizing negotiations because they might not go far enough or because they could be later broken is irresponsibility at its worst. If we refuse to trust Iran to adhere to agreements, then the choices for dealing with them are limited to very undesirable ones indeed.

In the same way that the United States and the USSR eventually made some headway in their Cold War, Iran and its opponents must be willing to come to the table and negotiate.

While the presence of religious extremists may very well give the current disagreement much higher stakes than the opposition the United States and the USSR had to each other’s governments, we will not find a viable solution if we never actually make any agreements.

The talks with Iran to take place in Geneva must be given a chance.