It's probably fair to say that most people following the controversies over the Iran deal have never actually read it and are relying on what people who have read it on both sides are saying about it.
So who's right? Those who support the deal or those who oppose it?
Maybe the best way for anyone who hasnt actually read the deal to come to an informed conclusion is to evaluate what each side, especially those in congress who have to vote for or against it, say in support of or opposition to the deal and base their conclusions on that though the most recent Pew Research poll, as of Sept 9, shows only 21% of Americans support the deal. A bad omen for Democrats.
Those who oppose the deal offer these facts:
Fact: The deal doesn't prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only delays it. Iran will be able to pursue a nuclear weapon in ten years if it chooses to at best and will have the hundreds of billions in sanctions relief to do so. This doesn't factor in Iran cheating and fooling IAEA inspectors.
Fact: The deal lifts the ban on Iran having ICBM's, something General Dempsy, Obama's outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said should never happen, and whose only purpose is to deliver a nuclear warhead at distances as far away as the United States.
Fact: The arms embargo will be lifted allowing Iran to buy and sell arms and provide them terrorists around the world, something even Obama admits.
Fact: The former Deputy General of the IAEA has said the inspection arrangment is not nearly good enough and it will be easy for Iran to cheat.And that allowing Iran to inspect itself at sites like Parchin where they had been caught cheating before trying to develop triggers for a nuclear bomb is ridiculous.
Fact: Iran said it has no intention of abiding by UN resolution 2231 which supported the deal and said they will not abide by the arms embargo which is to be lifted in a few years..Rouhani said," We will buy weapons anywhere we deem necessary. We won't wait for anybody's permission or approval and won't look at any resolution. We will sell weapons to anywhere we deem necessary." And he said it on television.
Fact: Rouhani said that the only way there can be middle east peace is for Iran to be able to stand up to its enemies militarily. He said, " How can a weak country unable to stand up to the military power of its neighbors, rivals and enemies, achieve peace"? (That enemy wouldn't be Israel would it? And since Israel has nuclear weapons, and since Rouhani has pointed out the necessity of Iran being able to "stand up" militarily to its enemies, isn't that a clear warning shot that Iran has every intention of eventually developing a nuclear weapon as soon as they can ?)
Fact: Throughout the course of the deal Iran will be allowed to declare military sites off limits to inspections and,that only certain declared nuclear sites can be inspected (besides Parchin which Iran will inspect itself)For any undeclared site that is not military the IAEA has 24 days to prove to a 7 country panel there are violations at the site. Of course if they could prove that without inspecting the site there would be no reason to inspect the site. So no wonder Iran loves the deal.)
Fact: The deal is heartily endorsed by Iran's president and Iran's top military chief and the Ayatollah
Fact: Ayatollah Khamenei said on Sept 9 "Israel will never see the coming 25 years".
Those who support the deal and say:
"What's the alternative"?
"Anyone who thinks there can be a better deal is living in a unicorn fantasy world"
"It's not what I had hoped for".
"It's this deal or war with Iran".
"There is no better deal available now" ( and why does it have to be right now? There is no better deal available now because this is the deal Obama agreed to and Iran accepted and is thrilled).
Wendy Wasserman Schultz: "The White House assured me the inspections can be enforced" (why did she need the White House to assure her? Its the IAEA who does the inspections. It's not clearly spelled out in the deal? And she is voting for the deal based on Obama;s assurances when even he admits he hasn't seen the IAEA protocol made with Iran on inspections?)
Jerrold Nadler: "Obama promised me he'll use military force if necessary to stop Iran from getting a bomb" (If necessary? Isn't this deal supposed to prevent the need for military force? Wasn't it supposed to be the substitute for military force? Wasn't that the whole point?)
Obama: "The people who oppose the deal are the very people whose judgement got us into the war in Iraq" ( so far those who support the Iran deal include Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Colin Powell to name just a few supporting the deal whose judgement got us into the war in Iraq).
Senator Mikulski: "For all it's flaws it's the best way to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon" (its either the best deal that could have been negotiated or it has a lot of flaws. It cant be both.)
MoveOn: Its Republican war hawks who are against the deal ( Like Chuck Schumer, Robert Menedez, Ben Cardin, Joe Manchin Steve Israel, and Nita Lowery all liberal or moderate Democrats?)
MoveOn;" It's 60 days or its war with Iran!. Those opposing the deal are war mongers who want war." (so those who wanted war with Iran all along need this deal to fall through to start a war they could have started 15 years ago? And if the deal falls through, then what? Obama starts a war? The president who reneged on a pledge for a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons is going to start a war? Who exactly starts this war in 60 days if the deal falls through?)
Obama: "Those who oppose the deal have "common cause" with Iran's hardliners" (like Iran's top military commander who loves the deal and who congratulated Assad for humiliating the U.S. and the Ayatollah Khaemeni who has also endorsed the deal?)
Obama: "99% of everyone supports the deal" (CNN polls showed 52% want congress to kill the deal and in new Sept. 9 Pew Poll only 21% say they support it).
Michigan senator Gary Peters: "despite my serious reservations I will reluctantly vote against a motion of disapproval".(is that a quadruple negative?)
Senator Wyden: " This agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned. It's not the agreement I would have accepted but it's better than no deal at all" (If its not the deal he would have accepted why is he accepting it? And whatever happened to "no deal is better than a bad deal"?)
UK Foreign secretary Phillip Hammon: "We want to ensure the nuclear deal is a success by encouraging trade and investment once sanctions were lifted". Really? So all Israel and the U.S. had to do all this time was open a McDonald's in Tehran and make some trade deals and that would have done the trick? Who knew?)
Hammond: "There is a huge appetite (in the UK) both on the part of our commercial and industrial businesses to engage with the opportunity of Iran opening up and there is a huge appetite for our financial institutions to support that activity". I bet there is. But don't forget keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That's important too right?
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who supports the deal said on Sept.9: " Israel will cease to exist in 25 years. Israel will not see the coming 25 years." And Netanyahu was worried. How silly. And on improving future relations with the United States and negotiating other issues, Khamenei said, " There will be no future negotiations on anything with the United States. We ousted the Great Satan. We will not let it ( to Khamenie we are an "it") in through the window."
Hillary Clinton on supporting the deal: "Diplomacy is the balancing of risk". (No it's not. Diplomacy is not the balancing of risk. Diplomacy is supposed to eliminate future risks not balance them. Diplomacy seeks to avoid risks by solving a political or territorial conflict by an agreement between the parties that permanently resolves the conflict without the use of force or other means of conflict to prevent future risk. It's purpose is to remove and resolve conflicts, threats and future risk not balance it. If there is still a risk Iran can get a nuclear weapon in spite of this deal it's not diplomacy it's stupidity. )
On the question of what happens in ten years when the deal expires and Iran has ICBM's, the arms embargo had been lifted, they have hundreds of billions in sanctions relief and can legally pursue nuclear weapons?
John Kerry: "We'll see what happens, senator".
And Democrats wonder why they lose elections?