But of the experts that do believe the Iran deal is bad, what is their reasoning?
I recently heard John Bolton on the Banter podcast explain his view on why the deal is bad. And I just don't get it. He thinks we shouldn't lift sanctions in exchange for their reduction and allowed-inspection of their nuclear program because he doesn't think they'll follow their end of the bargain. So what does he say they'll do instead?
"play Ms. Goody Two-Shoes for the next 6 months or so to get the sanctions lifted"
Of course, if they go back on their deal, then the sanctions are supposed to be re-applied. But he says we won't be able to get other countries to agree to re-apply the sanctions. I don't know why I should believe that, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. What affects does he think the sanctions have on their nuclear program?
"I've never believed that (our sanctions) imposed real hardship... The sanctions did not slow down the nuclear program"
OK, so by his own words, if Iran breaks the deal and doesn't get their sanctions re-applied, then their nuclear program is slowed down by the 6+ months they spent playing nice, and it's not sped up by any other factor. So... wouldn't that be good? What does he think we should do instead?
"The overwhelmingly most likely outcome here - deal or no deal - is Iran gets nuclear weapons... There are only 2 options ... either Iran gets nuclear weapons (the most likely outcome), or somebody uses military force to prevent that from happening."
What!? So the deal is bad because the only good option is war? Even if war is the only alternative to Iran getting a nuclear weapon, I don't understand why making a deal that you believe they'll break reduces the likelihood of us doing that.
In other Iran-nuclear-deal-news... "United Against Nuclear Iran" is a think-tank opposed to the deal, and their president just had to step down because he has decided that the deal is good.