My support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the P5+1 and Iran, better known as the Iran deal, was lukewarm at best when I began this column, but I now believe anyone who reads the deal and the surrounding arguments should come to support the deal as I have.

While lofty, President Barack Obama himself made the case that the best deal was one that would completely end Iran’s nuclear program, during his October 2012 debate with the Republican presidential nominee. This deal obviously leaves Iran with a nuclear infrastructure, which is the primary concern for the deal’s detractors.

Yet, “there isn’t a ‘better deal’ to be gotten,” according to Secretary of State John Kerry. This point was reinforced by a number of foreign envoys in early August who claimed, “The current international consensus on sanctions would unravel, and international unity and pressure on Iran would be seriously undermined” if the deal was rejected.

Secondly, all options remain on the table for the United States, and the deal makes those options more feasible if necessary. Under the deal, Iran will have only one-third of its current centrifuges, 3 percent of its current low-enriched uranium stockpile, and the International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring the storage of the excess stockpiles.

This reduction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is an amazing feat that can only be achieved through diplomatic means. And if Iran fails to implement these reductions, or cheats on the deal, the United States retains every option, including unilateral military action.

Many have come to doubt that the inspections regime is enough, and the ability of the P5+1 to react will be handicapped if Iran commits an infraction. These arguments usually take shape with the buzz phrases “24-day waiting period” and “snapback sanctions that won’t snapback.” These simply aren’t true.

There isn’t a 24-day waiting period. “What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause.”

Including this false claim actually undermines a crucial truth of the deal: American intelligence will continue to be vigilant in finding undisclosed sites or activities, and the deal will make our intelligence more effective by allowing us to focus and search for these sites.

If our opponents would say when additional sites are discovered, Iran would have to respond quickly or the United States could act alone to reinstate the entire regime of international sanctions. This point is worth repeating. If Iran cheats, the United States, unilaterally, can force the sanctions of the United Nations, European Union and six other sovereign nations to come back into place.

To be sure, there are concerning portions of the deal. Sunset clauses on enrichment restrictions and lifting the ban on intercontinental ballistic missile’s after eight years certainly aren’t ideal, but if there is a true consensus that a nuclear Iran is one of our primary national security concerns then this deal gives us more time to address those challenges.

Some have complained about the financial windfall Iran will receive from sanctions relief and that Iran receives international legitimacy and normalized world relations through this deal, but if we are true believers in the force and ability of American power, these concerns should be addressed in other aspects of our foreign policy.

It is in our power to move the course of foreign affairs in our interests, and the interests of our allies. The Iran deal is a logical step in that journey.