The latest letter on the Iran nuclear deal focuses on potential benefits to the volatile region.

In the battle over the Iran nuclear deal, a favorite weapon has been the letter to Congress � in support or opposition � signed by a slew of prominent people: rabbis, nuclear experts, military leaders and more.

The latest such missive comes from more than 70 Middle East and foreign affairs scholars � including prominent leftists such as Noam Chomsky � and their argument in favor of the agreement doesn�t just focus on Iran�s nuclear weapons program. Instead, they say, lawmakers should support the deal because it paves the way for more stability in an area seemingly on fire.

�The region suffers from a diplomacy deficit, and the mere fact that the U.S. and Iran can talk to each other again is in and of itself a stabilizing factor for the Middle East and an encouragement for regional rivals to pursue dialogue instead of proxy fights,� the signatories write.

It�s a stance that�s likely to get push back from conservative pro-Israel groups who have stridently opposed the nuclear agreement partly on grounds that it will empower and enrich Iran, allowing it to cause even more trouble in the Middle East either directly or through proxies.

The letter, organized by the National Iranian American Council, includes several signatories aside from Chomsky who are perceived as critical of Israel and its influence in the United States, including liberal writer Peter Beinart and academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

But the names also include a range of others prominent in their fields, including religious scholar John Esposito of Georgetown University and economics professor Hadi Esfahani of the University of Illinois. One unusual signatory is Columbia University�s Ehsan Yarshater, a 90-something academic who has spent decades putting together the Encyclopaedia Iranica and who is not known for weighing in on politically charged issues.

In urging members of Congress to support the Iran agreement, the letter acknowledges that �the nuclear deal will not automatically or immediately bring stability to the region,� and it nods to the 36 years of U.S.-Iranian enmity. It points to the �carnage in Syria� where Iran is supporting the regime of Bashar Assad, and the threat of the Islamic State terror network, which Iranian-backed Shiite militias are fighting alongside U.S.-backed Iraqi troops.

It insists, however, that �reactivating diplomatic channels between the United States and Iran is a necessary first step. Ultimately, a Middle East where diplomacy is the norm rather than the exception will enhance U.S. national security and interests.�

President Barack Obama has said the nuclear deal was never supposed to be about other problems in the Middle East, and that its success should be judged on whether it prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Still, even Obama has acknowledged the possibility of future cooperation with Iran on issues such as resolving the Syrian conflict.

For now, the White House is focused on making sure the deal survives a vote in Congress, expected in mid-September.
This article was written by Nahal Toosi for Politico on Aug. 27, 2015. Nahal Toosi is a foreign affairs correspondent at POLITICO. She joined POLITICO from The Associated Press, where she reported from and/or served as an editor in New York, Islamabad, Kabul and London.