Not that I understand the heavy opposition we have seen to the deal (beyond the normal partisan politics), but the explanation that the GOP is trying to appease Israel seems lacking. Specifically, that begs the question of why Israel (or rather, Netenyahu et al) oppose the deal. I find it difficult to believe that they would be willingly to obstruct the path to keeping Iran from a bomb just to satisfy their own internal politics, so presumably there is something else to the disagreement.

The military-industrial complex is not a rational animal. It knows that it wants to manufacture more armaments. It also knows that in the past, "sanctions" were an effective pretext and political cover for its singular purpose, since the marketing story for them was seemingly opposed to that purpose. Now, when "sanctions" are widely imagined to have "worked" in accomplishing the goals publicly claimed for them, the beast is angry that it went along with the marketers and pollsters. The military-industrial complex expresses its anger through retired generals, think-tank analysts, and "conservative" politicians. If we just ignore it and stop feeding it so much, it will quiet somewhat, eventually.

Why is it hard to understand?

By lifting of the sanctions Iran will have significant more resources and at the same time maintain their ability to get to a bomb. They are not giving up any of their capabilities so why do you think this is the path keeping Iran from the bomb?

They can get to a bomb either by violating the agreement (secretly or otherwise) or simply waiting for enough time to elapse. The additional resources will help the regime maintain its power and increase its involvement in various conflicts in the region, in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

The deal is effectively a result of the US having no leverage. There is no real military option. The sanctions are eroding anyways. It's really a choice between the lesser of two evils and it's a difficult one.

> They can get to a bomb either by violating the agreement

Apparently a lot of their material (both the fissile material, as their equipment) is taken away. Meaning to get back to the bomb-producing levels they are at today would take years. If they broke the agreement next year, they'd simply have had years of setback.

Apparently there are also mechanisms in place to immediately have sanctions return on Iran if it were found to be working on a bomb. After all, they're a signatory member of the non-proliferation treaty, and the entire world is in support of non-proliferation. If they were found to be working on a bomb, they'd have a much, much weaker moral position than they do today (and it's already pretty abysmal), so the notion that sanctions would return isn't surprising. The notion that all nuclear facilities would be taken away if the agreement was violated, also isn't unrealistic, and that it'd be at the threat of military action, rather than just diplomatic action.

Lastly, as far as continuously referenced experts are concerned, it seems you're overstating the ability to simply violate the agreement in secret. Apparently that's pretty damn hard to do on a normal day, but even harder to do with the level of access and transparency, and while we can mock the US at times in its competence, I have very few doubts about its intelligence capacities.

The rest of your post is spot on though. (sanctions would erode over time, military option doesn't exist, and Iran has a growing economy and population that will strengthen its influence in the region).

A quick overview. Vox is pretty biased and not very technical, but it's still a decent overview on what experts think, how many centrifuges are taken away (70%, leaving only knockoffs of 1970s centrifuges), how much fissile material is taken away (97%), what the limits of enrichment (allowed to enrich to <4%, 20% is necessary for medicine, 90% for a bomb) are, what other requirements will be met (one of its reactor's cores must be replaced with one unable to produce weapon's grade material, spent fuel must be shipped out, inspections and transparency is full) etc:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good

The equipment isn't taken away. It's just placed in storage for 10 years. The breakout time period I've heard about getting to a bomb is one year. Some have said it's as short as 3 months. Even if we accept "years" not sure that really matters. Somehow I don't think Iran's regime is very concerned about their moral position in western eyes. They have their own ideas of morality. They also have longer term goals, they don't report quarterly results ;)

My current reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

I think you're also exaggerating the ability of intelligence and inspections to really know what's going on. How long did it take North Korea to go from inspections to a bomb? Iraq? Libya? Syria? Lots of example of the limitations of intelligence gathering.

The agreement basically accepts Iran as a "nuclear threshold" state.

It is very unlikely to push Iran towards any liberal or democratic reforms. The whole framing around how western powers have meddled with Iran historically somehow justifies what's going on today is ridiculous. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. The Shah backed by western powers oppressed the people and the current regime backed by other powers oppresses the people (not to mention what happened to moderate Iranians at the time of the revolution). There is an incredible amount of naivety and ignorance around the discussion.

All that said, I tend to agree with Kerry/Obama in that the agreement is perhaps the best we can get right now. It's just not a very good best, kind of an admission of defeat. There is some small chance it will lead to an overall increase in stability but there's also a non-negligible chance of the opposite, less stability and more actors with nuclear weapons.

I'm not sure why you think the GOP is in disarray. The Republicans don't trust Iran not to build a bomb. To think the Iranians won't is naive to a childish degree. We went down this road with the North Koreans. Are memories that short?

And what happened with Democrats and anti-Semitism? When did it become okay to see Evil Jews behind every problem?

Comparing Iran to North Korea is quite a stretch, and frankly doing so reveals that you are severely misinformed about the Iranian people, culture, government, and history. It's OK, majority of people are, and I would be more than happy to clear up any questions you might have regarding the matter.

It's not a stretch at all when it comes to nuclear weapons. The Iranians are doing exactly what the North Koreans did. The "people, culture, government, and history" are relevant only to the extent to which they played into the government's decision to acquire nuclear weapons.

For me a big difference between North Korea and Iran is the balance of soft vs hard power in those countries. In Iran the ordinary people tend to push back in a lot of ways and the government gives ground if grudgingly and slowly. And there is a lot of politics going on between factions with real power.

Given that I'm willing to be very patient. Seriously, the generals of the Red Army ran the soviet union for 35 years after Stalin died and then they passed on. So too will the Iranian revolutionaries.

While I do think that the Iranian people and culture are as a rule of thumb non militant (with enough material prosperity comes a time when you prefer to trade with someone and not kill him), it is the ruling theocracy that overrides everything else. Until Saudi Arabia and Iran both get their Kemal Ataturk (with less genocide if possible) that enshrines the secularist nature of the countries for a century (sadly Erdogan was allowed to exist, lets hope that this gets fixed soon) they cannot be viewed as a reliable partners.

> The Republicans don't trust Iran not to build a bomb.

Neither do the authors of this deal. The choices are:

(a) Do nothing and allow Iran to continue to be within 6-7 months of making a bomb, as they are now (b) Implement the deal and push that time out to 15+ years (c) Try even harder to negotiate a better solution (d) Stop them by force before they build it.

If you oppose choice (b), what other options do you propose?

Your read of the timelines is incorrect. It's more like (a) keep sanction and see Iran get the bomb within 5-10 years, (b) do the deal and see Iran get the bomb within a year or two, or (c) let sanctions lapse with no deal and see Iran get the bomb within a year or two.

Those are the choices. To see this deal as any impediment to Iran's nuclear program is woefully naive.

The price of oil is about to fall in the shitter and the Iranians (and the Saudis) are going to have their hands full avoiding a balance of payments crisis and importing gasoline and essentials for the population with the "stranded assets" that are being repatriated to them. The hope is that they'll realize a war will get them minus nowhere and that the populace has some tiny degree of leverage on them. Most of these regime figures (Asgharowladi, etc) just want to make money, go look at the size of their bank accounts in Switzerland.

Other people's sovereignty doesn't go away because we don't like it. I don't like the fact that Israel basically built a porch on the Litani for 20 years and simultaneously was building nukes way bigger than needed for tactical or regional ICBM purposes but I don't go around telling people to bomb Dimona.

The GOP is right to be concerned about Iran's ability to build nuclear weapons, there has absolutely been an appalling breakdown in the international community's willingness to care about proliferation. But they are utterly, utterly wrong in how they've handled that problem. They've acted like children, and if anything made the situation worse.

> And what happened with Democrats and anti-Semitism? When did it become okay to see Evil Jews behind every problem?

Evil zionists. It's not the jews who are evil, but their zionists. Netanyahu and his worker bees over at AIPAC, specifically.