Iran Deal

"We were able to decrease the threat of the potential for Iranian nuclear weapons. No matter how substantial that decrease was, we made the world a little more safe and more peaceful by decreasing the threat that Iran would face to the world's people." Obviously I am not trying to argue that the Iran Deal accomplished literally nothing, as that is by definition not true. What I am arguing is that the minimal decrease in the threat of the Iranian nuclear threat was in no way worth all of the assets that we gave them access to. "If the United States didn't investigate the Iranian uranium facilities, that wouldn't be the fault of the deal, it would be the fault of the United States for not taking advantage of what we were given in the deal." Of course the United States choosing not to investigate Iran wouldn't be the fault of the deal. However, setting up a situation where the U.S. is obligated to spend time and money on yet another task is not something I'd call a pro. It is entirely possible that a situation will come up where the inconvenience of organizing such an investigation time and time again combined with the difficulty of actually completing a comprehensive investigation on time with severe opposition from Iran will become too much and whoever is responsible for such investigations will be required to shirk their duties in some way. "They can try their best to delay the process of investigation, but the United States Government has said many times that it will make sure that we carry out our side of the deal, and investigate them whenever we think it's necessary." With regards to the difficulty of the investigation, at this point it is simply our word against theirs. However, there is one big difference here: if the Iranian government cannot follow up on their words some number of times, it doesn't matter to them. If the United States cannot follow up on their words even once, that could create a potential catastrophe. The US government has to be 100% right and the Iranian government has to never be correct to avoid a disaster. The more moving cogs you involve in a system, the more likely it is that one of them will rust or break. "Because Iran hates the United States, if we allowed them access to the most dangerous and destructive weapon on the planet, we would basically be allowing the proceeding of our demise to occur." "However, the idea was that if we could work together and compromise on something that we both felt strongly about, it would open up a higher quality discussion with Iran, and provide us with the framework to solve other grievances we have with one another." I'm just going to leave this two quotes here and watch them contradict each other... We can't both be cutting off Iran from the nuclear bomb because they hate us and also trying to open up discussions about how we can become friends. "We "were so bent on taking away their ability to create nuclear weapons", because a nuclear warhead in by far the most dangerous and destructive weapon on the face of the earth." I agree that a nuclear weapon is the most destructive and dangerous weapon on the face of the earth. However, they are not the only ways for Iran to attack other countries. The "Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power", or ATBIP, is the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the world currently. Its explosion has an effect similar to that of a tactical nuke, without the radiation. These thermobaric weapons are incredibly strong, and certainly enough to cause tremendous loss of life in any highly-populated city. This weapon in particular was created by the Russians, who I'm sure would be more than happy to take Iran's new money. My point is that by opening up all of these alleyways, we may have created a bigger threat than we started with. The US has to decide whether we want to treat Iran as a friend and ally, or as an enemy. If we are going to treat them as friends, why are we cutting them off from the ability to create nuclear weapons? If we are going to treat them as enemies, why are we giving them money and resources? In addition, we still have not gotten Iran to give up information about their past nuclear works, including on international ballistic missiles that can carry nukes across the globe. The very fact that Iran is already going against their agreement to give inspectors access to all nuclear facilities is a symptom of the weak deal that we have gotten ourselves into.