Tajshar2k: no one wants Iran to have a nuke except Iran and the terrorists they subsidize. This deal is makes it to where on paper they are not supposed to have a nuke, but gives them all of the tools to be able to secretly make one on their own without the US having hardly any means to suppress Iran's nuke building capacity. I guarantee no one wants Iran to have a nuke less than Israel, and they were very opposed to this deal. Netanyahu even made a special trip to our congress to try and stop the poor deal that Obama is negotiating. Obama is a very weak negotiator when it comes to foreign policy (take a look at Syria, Russia, Sgt. Bergdahl, etc). His poor negotiating skills are exacerbated by the fact that the US is way more powerful (both economically and militarily) than all of the countries he negotiates with, yet he still concedes way too much to other countries. This is a bad deal because Obama wants a deal, any deal, good or bad, more than anything else for his own legacy, not for the good of the country. He wants to be able to say that his greatest second term accomplishment was that he was able to sit down with Iran and negotiate a deal. Then, a few years down the road when either Iran gets a nuke, or the region is even more unstable because of this, the future of America will just blame the president in power at that future time. Unless the future president happens to be a democrat, then they will just blame George W. Bush.
Well, alrighty then. I was just responding to a posted question from before that appears to have since been removed. But I stand by what I said. No American thinks that Iran having a nuclear weapon is a good idea, that is not a party vs party issue. The issue is that supporters of the deal think that the deal is preventing a nuclear Iran, and those who oppose the deal see this as a terrible failure of negotiations where we are rushing into a horrible deal that is not in ours, or the region's best interest simply so we can say that we reached a deal. We would rather have a bad deal now (while Obama is still in office) than a good deal later that could be credited to a future president.
Contrary to what people might believe, the IAEA does do inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, and will report all violations. By definition, a deal "is an agreement entered into by two or more parties for their mutual benefit, especially in a business or political context." It cannot be a valid argument that the obama administration gave too much ground, as we put the economic sanctions on Iran that we are removing in the first place. The only valid argument for what we might be losing is peace in Iran. However, it can be said that Iran's hostility to the U.S. and its allies is partly due to the U.S. economic sanctions, and not just agression to be aggressive. With renewed trade, Iran will not have any further need to attack or harm any U.S. allies, such as Israel.
@MrFutureMan The "Iran will not have any further need to attack or harm any U.S. allies" makes sense, but Israel may be the one exception to that rule. Iran is a theocracy and have stated repeatedly that Israel's very existence is an affront to them.
@58539672 You bring up a good point about Israel. I myself have many Isrealite friends, and talking to them, they are against the Iran nuclear deal for just that reason. However, as the deal essentially removes government sanctions on Iran, which were hurting its economy, the ensuing, inevitable boom will certainly convince them that war against the United States or its allies is not what they, or their people want.