Could 2013 be the year we get to "yes" with Iran?

Within a couple of weeks, President Obama will have a new national security team in place. The Senate has confirmed John Kerry as secretary of state. The Senate also is likely to confirm Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, despite a biased and unfounded smear campaign. Jack Lew will soon be considered by Congress for treasury secretary, and John Brennan for CIA director.

One of the biggest national security challenges the president and his new team will face over the next few years is the threat that Iran may build a nuclear weapon. Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has not yet made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons, according to U.S., European and Israeli intelligence agencies. So what are the chances the president's new team will be able to help Obama arrive at a diplomatic agreement with Iran before Khamenei decides to build a nuclear bomb?

What roles are there for our military and diplomatic corps in preserving America's interests?

President Obama has reaffirmed that he would do what is necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, including using force. Military action by the United States would do severe damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, but it would not stop Iran from building a bomb. It actually could provoke a decision to build a weapon.

At the moment, the Iranians are heavily burdened by international sanctions. We would be wise to explore avenues for ratcheting down those sanctions as part of a negotiating position. The sanctions' pressure on Iran's economy, the country's increasing sense of isolation and concerns about the well-being of its people may well be nudging Khamenei to the negotiating table.

But if he believes that the economic pressure will increase no matter what he does, he has no incentive to act differently. This diminishes the power of sanctions alone to change his behavior and increases the potential for military escalation.

The other option is diplomatic engagement. Iranian and American officials have signaled an openness to one-on-one talks, especially after Iran's presidential elections in June to replace the erratic Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The shape of a deal on the nuclear issues is obliquely understood by both sides, but Iran has made clear it expects some specificity on this issue. Of course getting to a deal is a problem because of 30 years of mistrust between the two sides. So at the most basic level, Iran should agree to keep in full its nonproliferation treaty commitment and to provide for the greatest transparency so inspectors can monitor its nuclear program.

On the U.S. side, there should be a plan to reduce the sanctions on nuclear development as well as a recognition of Iran's right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes only. An early start would be for Iran to stop production of 20 percent-enriched uranium (which can shorten the time needed to produce weapons-grade uranium) in exchange for relaxed sanctions.

Over time other issues, which now separate the United States and Iran and build mistrust and misunderstanding, will need to be addressed, including Iran's future role in the Middle East.

There would be risks in starting talks with Iran, given the long, dismal experiences and dangerous relations we have had with that country. Yet a steady and mutually reinforcing hand of President Obama's new national security team could help guide our country through these rough waters to achieve a political solution with Iran.

In his first press conference following re-election, President Obama said, "We're not going let Iran get a nuclear weapon, but I think there is still a window of time for us to resolve this diplomatically."

For now, at least, everyone is best served if efforts focus on opening and expanding the diplomatic playing field.