iran deal is a mistake

However, I will present my argument, as you refused to clarify whatsoever and made no new points. A mistake, according to Collins English dictionary, is either '1. an error or blunder in action, opinion, or judgment' or '2. a misconception or misunderstanding'. The deal between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a mistake, as it was carefully deliberated by both parties and did not incorporate any misconception, misunderstanding, error or blunder. From the perspective of the United States, the few additional weeks in which to 'hide wrongful activity' is largely irrelevant, as Iran has been able to develop a sophisticated nuclear programme for several years largely unimpeded (. http://www.nti.org...) - was the deal not enacted, Iran would have boundless years in which to hide unlawful nuclear development, rather than several weeks. Furthermore, Iran will only receive the benefits of the deal once they are able to sufficiently prove that hey have met the requirements established for demonstrating their constrained nuclear programme, so there is therefore effectively a maintenance of the status quo for the period in which Iran has made no demonstrable change. In other words, should Iran fail to meet the standards set, there is no benefit to Iran, whereas if Iran meets the standards, there is benefit to Iran and the P5+1. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran, their nuclear programme must take priority behind that of their economic development, making it very clear that the deal is in no way a poor decision nor a mistake. Amazingly, you at no point specified for whom you believe the deal is a mistake, so even if the deal was detrimental for the United States, which I have effectively proved it is not, then it would still not be considered a mistake. I would also like to point out that 'iran. .. getting stronger economically' is actually not a negative event for the United States, as Iran is a potential trade partner for the United States. Furthermore, the increased trade of Iranian oil should depress oil prices worldwide, having a very large positive net effect on the American economy (. http://www.chicagotribune.com...). Finally, I would like to establish that sanctions are typically detrimental in their effect on the global economy, and rarely effective in achieving their purpose. The sanctions the West established against Iran had the effect of causing many to blame the West for Iran's economic hardship, further destabilising the regime (. http://www.iar-gwu.org...). The sanctions against Cuba did not succeed in toppling the Castro regime, and the sanctions against North Korea unilaterally enacted by the majority of the Western world did not prevent North Korea from developing a sophisticated and successful nuclear programme. Sanctions are also a form of economic protectionism, preventing free trade, and are effectively economically inefficient, as was well-established by the work of Milton Friedman. The most efficient global economy is one with no trade barriers and an unimpeded free market. You have not met any of the Burden of Proof, nor have you even made a salient argument. Rather, all you have done is criticised me in the third person for attempting to show proper form and repeated your previous sole point. I would also like to recommend this style guide (. http://www.economist.com...) for future reference.