Has any Republican in the Senate or House said that US, and US sanctions alone would have any great effect on Iran to get them back to the negotiation table? We should talk to our allies to have them join us. Which P5 plus one allies would these be?

Since President Obama and his staff are total fools, who in the Republican party is going to do this? When Reagan took office, our enemies thought he was out of his mind, and would do anything? What current Republican can fit the insanity mold?

If President Obama is a whiner, he has plenty of company on the Republican side to include their supporters. It appears that is what they do best, and the only thing that they do.

President Obama is great for television entertainment. Who is leading the Republicans candidates for president? The answer is a for real television entertainer.

Not sure why the party designation. BOTH parties have great concern about this deal obviously.

I realize the President has drawn party lines but even on the left are great great concerns. Basically because as he talks behind him we can see Iran positioning already.

I do not see this as a Party issue at all. HOWEVER we will see many who will make it such which is our problem,

I know you see everything through the prism of what party.....I find that a bit distasteful because I know from experience and history that no one party has all the answers. You feel differently and that is your right, but seeing this through that tweets and press releases of the left is a bad thing.

To have activist groups like MOVEON even involved in this scares me. I can see how you might be ok with that as the PARTY is your guiding light.

By your post, are YOU saying that the secret deals are fine with you, even though our President does not know what is in them ? By your post, are YOU saying you are comfortable with the leading military leader violating the UN and traveling to Russia ? By your post, are YOU comfortable knowing that IRAN WILL get the bomb..just a matter of when ? By your post, do you disregard Saudi and others who fear this is the beginning of a huge arms race ? By your post, with all the terrorism in the ME, do you feel that allowing Iran to sponsor it and give them more resources to do that is ok ?

I would really like to hear your take on the ISSUES above instead of mouthing what you are being fed by left wing websites. It is not partisan this topic.

I think a simple fact that separates those of us who are trully conerned and need to know from those who blindly follow what ever direction is established and of course the politicians in Washington that only have re-election and quid quo pro accomplishment in mind.

Many of us who earned their living by negotiating contracts and agreements and purchases and sales of muli millions of property and equipment.....add to that list the common sense of a majority of Americans......we all collectively cannot accept that it is OK to ignore or not know or not care what is in the side
agreements.

And it becomes especially note worthy and should raise all kinds of concerns and suspicions when America is excluded from knowing what is in the side agreements and shall not be involved in the agreed inspections.

With the concerns expressed above I would like to hear from ANY supporters of the Iran agreement why it is OK with them to not know what is in those agreements?

The whole agreement is crap! Why should we care about the side deals? All these deals are negotiated from a position of weakness. You can't negotiate with barbarians. They only think we are weak and laugh as they get their way.

I don't like Trump, but it is obvious that we need someone radical to snap us out of weak complacency. Perhaps it's time to hire the gunslinger to clean up the town.

Sen Schumer deserves quite a bit of credit.

He put our country ahead of POLITICS.

Up until I saw the POLITICAL ACTIVIST groups being used to lobby and pressure senators on the left and heard the President, I thought or was naive enough to think that each was seriously considering this deal.

IF you have political activists groups lobbying on something that they know nothing about....they just know how to twist arms.....then what do you think is the top priority here ? A good deal for America or Political gain ?

Then hearing all the remarks aimed at Sen Schumer, I begin to wonder out loud if this President even understands what he is doing.

This is not a baseball game.....not some parlor game...and he is treating it as a little political exercise.

One thing for sure always looking for something to justify opposition to President Obama to try to say our opposition was well founded.

The International Atomic Energy Agency does have several side agreement with Iran. There is nothing new here. It is standard operating procedure for them. If you can't trust the IAEA, who can you trust?

How were these secret agreements discovered? Tom Cotton asked IAEA, if they had private arrangements with Iran. They answered yes. Well, that was a well hidden secret! If the side arrangements were such a big deal, why not answer no? It is not like they didn't know that Tom Cotton was the author of the insane letter that he and 46 of his buddies sent to Iran before the deal was finalized.

What is the big deal with Iran military leader going to Russia? If Congress blows up this deal, he is going to live in Russia.

You have no idea at all that Iran will get an atomic bomb. When? IAEA inspectors being in Iran, is going to speed up Iran's path to the bomb? What world do you come from? Dispute all the crying, Congress knows that no American president is going to allow Iran to get an nuclear bomb. There is nothing stopping us from bombing the nuclear sites into the stone age. Breaking a deal goes both ways.

An arms race in the Middle East? Is there any country that Iran can't attack right now besides Israel? Why would they have to wait to get a nuclear weapon to attack?

The deal between P5 PLUS ONE addressed stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE WERE THE ONLY ONES IN THE DEAL WITH IRAN? All the other countries are so stupid that only the US knows what is acceptable, and what is not. My, do we think a lot of ourselves!

Since you can read me like a book, what web sites am I parroting? Who the hell are you trying to sell that this isn't a partisan issue? How many Democrats signed Tom Cotton's letter to Iran. That would be none. There is one thing for damn sure 47 Republicans aren't going to vote for the agreement. This can't be any more partisan.

Some of these clowns are saying President Obama is doing this to enhance his legacy. This agreement can go either way. If they are saying it is going to enhance his legacy, they have to think that this is a good agreement. That is simple logic. Chew on that for awhile.

You have attempted to answer a lot of questions in your post. It's always good to hear the other side of the debate and for that reason I appreciate your post. I wonder if you could answer one more question, as this is one that I just don't understand. Why do you think the release of hostages was not part of the deal? I'm more concerned now about what will happen to these hostages if this thing turns ugly down the road. Why not get them out beforehand, instead of keeping us all on the edge of our seats? It seems as if that was the least we could have demanded and yet we are not even getting that as part of the deal. This whole thing just felt more like a bloodletting to me rather than a negotiation and that's why I have not been for it....... JMHO. But thanks for articulating your side of the story. Comforting at least to hear some opposition without any name calling from either side :)

I tried this earlier in the thread but am willing to try again.

Would you buy a home without knowing and understanding the terms of the agreement?

For most of us the answer is obviously simple....it is a no!!

Further would you buy that home if it was determined the contract is acceptable however you will not know the terms, costs, payments, etc....they will be addressed in a separate agreement. And you will not know the finacial terms and are not allowed to contact the financial institutions involved.

Again for most of us the answer is a resounding NO!

Please note there is no need for poltical affiliation to buy a home or decide whether the terms of the agreement are acceptable or not.

NO DIFFERENCE regarding the Iran agreement.
How can any responsible person take a position of agreement or support for the agreement without knowing the terms of the agreement.

Just go along because of what Obama or Kerry advises one to do? Would you go along with the purchase of the house if the real estate agent advised you to go ahead and sign everything will be OK?

And all the while those who have to approve or agree with something they do not have all the information on have Obama add insult to injury, the nerve and the balls to state ANYBODY that does not go along with the agreement they are like the Islamic radical terrorists.

I for one am sick and tired of Obama, Kerry, the media and the lemmings (who also do not know the facts) blasting those of us who, on principal, will not accept on blind faith what is claimed to be in the agreement........no more than I would when buying a house.

There is no room for partisan leveraging of an unreasonable position.

Your post is a good analogy and one with which I totally agree, but here's the sad part -

To answer your 2 questions highlighted above, although I would agree with your resounding no, there are so many people out there, whether for the reason of blind trust, ignorance, or sheer laziness, that would actually say yes to that. It's almost like a subconscious thing where they just trust the authority figure, or feel they are not intelligent enough to ask questions, or just do things out of laziness, or don't make important matters a priority due to time constraints and would rather complain after the fact. That is the constituency that many of our corrupt leaders feed off of, and unfortunately there seem to be more and more people like that all the time. The dumbing down of America, people working 2 to 3 jobs to make ends meet because of the changes in our economy, etc, all play a part in the game taking place in our country. I'm not sure what it is going to take to wake up the majority in this country!

First of all, when I have said I can "read you like a book" it always revolved around your wisecracks and not a reply of any substance.

It appears that this might be of substance (ignoring the "chew on that awhile", etc) and for you to post this reply is heartening and I think great. This is what this forum is supposed to be about; the exchange of ideas, and I am proud of you,


I never objected to anything but two things on the secret deals.

First, the statements made to the public that ALL agreements would be turned over to congress without mentioning these secret deals was disingenious at best. Of course the USA government KNEW their was a side agreement and it just seems a bit phone not so say that there was one. The fact that congress needed to ask an outside body bothers me a bit.

On the secret deals, I think someone besides Wendy Sherman (who were told had a "glimpse" of them) that someone in greater authority (President, Secy of State, etc) should know what is in them. They center on Iran's military and what has been an ongoing discussion on what is really happening. The IAEA has had problems with this SPECIFIC site over years in trying to keep Iran in line, and that alone should warrant extra care. The track record of the iAEA with Iran is spotty at best and thus becomes an issue. That is not impugning the IAEA, but the fact that Iran has conned them in the past and thus it should be an issue in the future.

For me, the big deal about Iran military leader going to Russia is quite simple. IT
is against INTERNATIONAL LAW as the UN forbid him from doing just that. Not a great way to begin an era of trust. They went in secretly, thus THEY KNEW THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW. I think that speaks to the trust we should NOT have in this country.

Obviously, or let me say I do not know, but it appears that they went to Russia looking for more ICBM's because that is what they were working on before the deal. Maybe not you, but that fact give me pause.

Two things on your statement concerning other countries in getting weapons of mass destruction.

I was under the impression that one of the purposes of the IRAN agreement was to insure the non proliferation of nuclear weapons. As a result of this deal, already Saudi Arabia announced plans to begin the process to get it done before they KNOW Iran will have theirs.

I am not sure on the second thing. They do not need to wait for a nuclear weapon to attack as you say, but since they have been saying for many years they believe in the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of both the USA and Israel, they are not looking for a "war" but total and complete annihilation.

As to the future of Iran getting the weapon. The entire idea of all the sanctions was to not allow them in anyway at anytime. This deal allows that they CAN have them but under guidelines relative to time. Thus THEY WILL HAVE THEM and it is just a matter of time. That is the essence of the deal by the way.

As to the to the other countries, please read some foreign press. For example, the French prime minister is on record as saying he did not think the deal was strong enough and he was pressured into the agreement. This was a US run deal and if you look at the other parties, especially Russia, has so much to gain. Russia will be supplying arms and getting oil and all others want Iran as a trade partner.

Finally, while you at least for once are addressing real issues and that is great your attack mode has not changed. You were obviously angry and as to what sites you read, I have no idea. BUT, I assume you are okay with POLITICAL ACTIVIST groups being involved in pressuring Democrats ???? And while not accusing you because did not check the details, but much of what you say is also a talking point of MOVEON

But I have "chewed on that" did not return your "clown" adjective which you used and your mentioning of Tom Cotton, as one of your allies does a lot tells me a lot.

But I WOULD prefer not to ruin a great post by you in making some good points and it is appreciated. Lot better than the one liners as it will make people take notice and read and investigate.

Thank you and keep it up.

Excellent and unfortunately a too accurate assessment.
I think it is the fundamental reason our method of government, by representation has by default deteriorated to our so called representatives in Washington do as they see fit as they get at best minimal direction from those who voted them into office.

Add to the apathy of we the people the powerful presence of lobbyists, special interest and minority groups get much of the attention and focus of our so called representatives.

I had not viewed that a significant percentage of we the people fit the model you describe above. I stand corrected in my thinking. There are those, especially those participating in the government support (welfare, food stamps, forgiving loans, etc, etc) are quite content to have Washington continue forever. Eventually their numbers will dwarf those of us who disagree with the current status and where this form of government is taking our America.

Once those dependent upon Washington becomes the majority there is no hope of ever going back.

So I too keep hoping there is still time to wake up the majority while we still have it. I am concerned that there is anything that will inspire this group to action.

One thing Shummer didn't do was put his country first! Many of his votes come from jewish voters. He is putting his career (Reid is retiring...thank God) and party ahead of America. The same with the Republicans. I will vote for anyone, no matter what party affiliation, that puts country first!!!!!!
:popcorn:

IS he not elected to represent his constituents ? Is the deal not anti Jewish ?

Seems that makes him doing the right thing.

I do not think he was elected to cave to political pressure

I am intrigued by Sen Schumer's stance on this deal and will withhold my opinion about him until I see how this plays out. It would be great to see more of these legislators step outside of their political boxes and do and stand for the right thing. I don't care what party they are affiliated with, if they do that, they will have my vote. I can only hope that both parties are getting the message that the masses are fed up with party politics and party loyalties - more independent thinking on both sides of the aisle will be required to change the mess that we are currently in.

Exactly, but he probably will. Some of them like to posture for the votes, and still vote contrary to their constituents. What are you going to do? I've seen his past performance so I wouldn't trust him.

I am angry. I parrot the left wing press. You know this how? I don't know who Moveon is? I have never intentionally read or listened to anything that they have said.

I have a problem with Black Lives Matter. Plain and simple, they are racists. The easiest response to these people is tell them to vote Republican. You don't engage people, whose sole purpose is to shout you down.

But I have "chewed on that" did not return your "clown" adjective which you used and your mentioning of Tom Cotton, as one of your allies does a lot tells me a lot. I am sorry Tom Cotton is one of my allies. Where did that come from, and what did it tell you? What Tom Cotton and the 46 Republicans did with the letter to Iran is unforgiveable. You don't try to nix the deal before it is even made.

Read foreign press. How about England? The prime minister had no problem with the agreement. You just pick the press (domestic and foreign) that supports your thinking. All other press doesn't exist, or should be completely ignored because they are biased.

If the IAEA has had problems in dealing with Iran in the past, maybe the side agreements were to avoid having the same problems in the future. The Republicans were never going to vote for the agreement. By using the word secret side agreements, they are trying to give impression that the IAEA has some sinister ploy with Iran.

I am a moderate Independent. The reason that I may sound liberal is the Republicans have so far to the right they are off the grid. I don't get angry. I never have, and never will. The person that I will vote for in the primary is John Kasich. He certainly didn't disappoint me in the first debate.

I did tone down this post.

The reason that the four hostages weren't included in the deal with Iran is Iran would probably have looked for a concession in the deal to free the hostages. The agreement was hard enough to begin with. By adding anything to it might have made it impossible.

Almost every one of the Euopean and Asian countries hat vote for the agreement have substantial gains to be realized when the sanctions are lifted from Iran.

So those who like to point to our "allies" and have us learn from them should review the details of why they signed.

They were not driven by the political rhetoric coming out of Washington.....while they would all say they want the nuclear controls the agreement brings (:1rotfl::1rotfl:) so they say to Obama to puff him up and then :1rotfl: behind him.

I want to say this as nicely as possible.

I thought when I read your note that you were someone else.

Had I known it was you, I would not have replied.

Sorry for replying to you

Widely reported is that France wanted the USA to stick with the initial idea presented. Complete dismantling of nuclear and a partial easing of the sanctions, which Iran said would be a cause to leave the table.

France said ok but the USA intervened and gave in.

I have no idea if true but if you read the European press, the foreign minister has said as much.

But Russia is in a great place now. They already in conjunction with Iran have helped to violate a UN rule about the Iranian military visiting there but we never even protested that move.

There will be ICBM's rolling into Iran and Iran has the money to pay and now Russia has a place to buy oil because they now can and everything is just rosy.

The sanctions were working in my opinion and we just caved.

I DO understand how we might want a deal like this, but not this deal. We have empowered a lot of folks with this deal and it will be laid at the feet of the next person in the WH .

Here is the concern I have.

N Korea is making nukes
Pakistan is making nukes
India is making nukes
Belarus has agreed in 2010 to stop but they reneged and are making nukes.
Saudi Arabia has announced they will begin a program directly because of Iran
Russia is making changes to increase their nuke production.

And this quote from

"“Regional conflicts have gotten worse, not better” over Obama’s 6½ years, said former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), now the CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “All the things that give rise to nuclear ambitions … in my view have gotten worse.”

Obama’s proliferation problem – POLITICO

And this is the scary part....very scary......

"In addition, the possibility that terrorists could acquire enough radioactive material to create a nuclear weapon or so-called dirty bomb is “one of the greatest dangers facing the global community,” according to a report released in June from the 80-member Fissile Materials Working Group. Nuclear experts warn that highly enriched uranium at civilian sites — enough for hundreds of nuclear weapons spread over 100 facilities in the remaining 25 countries that possess it — tends to be less secure than that used in military applications. It’s generally up to the states that have those materials, including South Africa, Belarus and Kazakhstan, to keep them safe."

Just re read that paragraph.....it will not take much to destroy an entire....well, entire what would depend on how much money the group that wants to destroy has and guess who is going to get more money.....IRAN the single largest state supporter of terrorism.

And our President, being a peace loving guy (and I do not mean that to be sarcastic) has promised not to develop any new nuclear weapons on his watch, the first President in the nuclear era to do that.

I really worry because certain folks will be getting money and can afford to BUY whatever they want to promote anything terrorist. They need not to have their program in effect so it is easy for them to agree.

Concerning Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they could, if IAEA doesn't do their job. if Iran does get nuclear weapons, it will not be in great numbers. They would probably launch it/them against Israel. They would kill a lot of innocent people, which is totally wrong, but they wouldn't cause Israel total destruction.

If they did this, they have to know they would be wiped off the face of the earth. Can an entire country be so ready to die?

Israel with the help of the US will never let Iran get a nuclear weapon.

Yes, I heard this same statement coming from the President's mouth. The problem is that I don't understand it. A concession?? How could that be possible when we already had conceded everything to begin with?? So I guess the only way to get an "agreement" was for them to get what they wanted and us to get nothing in return? Unless I'm totally missing something here, I still see it as a bloodletting on our part, hopefully not to be followed by bloodshed. And I mean that sincerely...........praying for our country because it's the only thing I can think of to do at this point.

If you read post 61 and other links supplied and the european press, Iran does not NEED to get a nuclear weapon. They are the "lead dog" in terrorism and will have, from Russia, ICBMs and MONEY to help those developing weapons.

You don't understand radical Islam's mindset. Iran hates Israel and us. They don't care about the consequences of their actions and when (not if) they get a nuke, they WILL use it against Israel. These type of people do not think in the 21st or even in 20th century. When dealing with radicals, you have to deal with them via power. They have no respect for what they perceive as weakness in us. No, the only way to deal with Iran is with a hammer, not an open hand. As far as Israel is concerned, as long a Obama is residing in the White House, they will have nothing to say. He won't back them. He disrespects them, and I really believe he prefers the state of Islam over our close allies of Israel. Probably because he was indoctrinated by the Muslim in school in his youth. There are appox. 200,000 Americans residing in Israel, making it almost another small state. We have bit of an obligation to protect our interests over there. Either due to our fellow Americans or because of Israel's strategic value.

Your point is well stated and I agree. I think there is a select group of people that will never see that point of view however for one reason - they don't understand or believe that there is real evil in the world. I can't tell you how many times I have been laughed at for even mentioning the word in conversation/debate. I don't know if it is ignorance, or lacking a spiritual side, or what, but for some reason there are people who just can't or won't acknowledge evil, so it is hard for them to fathom what you say. The idea that radicalism exists to the point that their sole purpose is the destruction and annihilation of other people or countries is beyond some people's comprehension no matter how you try to state it. If one DOES understand that evil exists however, even the thought of making a deal with a country that wants all of us dead (and continues to state that while the deal is being made!) IS incomprehensible to say the least.

Exactly!! :thumbup::thumbup:

The supporters will never do or say anything that is not in line with the Obama agenda or consistent with party dictates.
Understanding has nothing to do with their intentions or actions.....there is none required or expected.

You got that right!

JUST BE AWARE.....AS HAS BEEN SAID ON HER MANY TIMES.

Despite the ridicule heaped on Romney, and then ridicule typed in this forum in 2008, when Romney told what the biggest threat was....Obama then ridiculed him for weeks.

"Despite the preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program, Iran currently has nothing of that nature which can threaten the homeland of the United States. Yet, Russia can obliterate the United States, a fact that has been highlighted recently by no less than three top American generals. The term, “existential threat,” has been used repeatedly to describe the Russian challenge. That term means the Russians can destroy the United States as a nation"

The nation is fiercely debating the Iran nuclear deal and the significance of the Ayatollah’s “death to America” tweets when the real problem is Iran’s sponsor, Russia, and its lunatic ruler, Vladimir Putin. By controlling the media, killing off the opposition, and smearing Ukrainian freedom fighters as Nazis, the former KGB colonel has his country worked into a collective frenzy over a concocted Western threat. Some experts believe Russia is preparing for nuclear war on a global scale. If Putin carries out his threats, America is no more.

In this case, the U.S. is facing not only a nuclear weapons program, which is the case with Iran, but what our top generals are calling an “existential threat” to our survival as a nation.

As the National Institute for Public Policy documents in the report, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: A Gathering Storm,” Russia has a new military doctrine that anticipates using nuclear weapons, and the regime has embarked on “a massive strategic modernization program to deploy new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”

Not only that, but Russia has a ballistic missile defense to use against us."

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation

"
"A vulnerable antagonist. Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen says America faces little danger from Russia’s current troubles, but that’s because she thinks in economic terms. In a broader sense, America potentially is in great danger because Putin and his advisors really believe they are the target of a Western plot to weaken their country. The biggest concern is that some new move by Russia along its borders degenerates into a crisis where Moscow thinks it can improve its tactical situation by threatening local use of nuclear weapons, and then the crisis escalates. At that point U.S. policymakers would have to face the reality that (1) they are unwilling to fight Russia to protect places like Ukraine, and (2) they have no real defenses of the American homeland against a sizable nuclear attack. In other words, the only reason Washington seems to have the upper hand right now is because it assumes leaders in Moscow will act “rationally.”"



If you wish to tie this Iran deal together with what else accompanies it, read the link here and above.

Iran is a puppet of Russia.

Why Putin's Russia Is The Biggest Threat To America In 2015

Former Republican presidential candidate and Tea Party favorite explains why the Iran deal is actually a good thing and why we should all be glad we live in these exciting times!

Michele Bachmann: Iran deal a cause for celebration because it proves the End Times have begun in earnest - Salon.com

Anybody who takes a position of supporting the agreement without knowing the impact and nature of the side agreements is doing nothing more than parroting their party rhetoric.

Until such time as the content of the side agreements is know.....NO ONE knows the validity of the "agreement".

I suggest most who are in support cannot even articulate the supposed content of the agreement....the major objectives agreed to and any timings.

Any takers?

There is absolutely nothing that we or congress can do to stop the agreement. The great emperor, king of czars has made his decision contrary to what is good for America or the rest of the world. Iran will not need to build nukes. They will purchase them from Russia. They will have all their money back and free to trade. NO sanctions.

Interesting to note that two former George Bush senior diplomats back the treaty. Of course, these diplomats aren't as smart and well versed as the posters from the Villages who frequent this site when they aren't reading Alinsky, as if any of them really have.

Former Bush Diplomats Push Back on Criticism of Iran Deal « LobeLog

How come none of the Villages Tea Party holy roller crowd haven't jumped on the Michele Bachman bandwagon? Here's another link to her reassuring position in case some of you astute readers missed it.


Michele Bachmann Is 'Extremely Excited' for Iran Deal Because It Will Usher God's Judgement on the World as Foretold In Zechariah 12:3

Did you say something? Are we comparing something here? Size? What? Are you taking a poll of Conservatives and Liberals that are for and against the treaty. Did you get Schumer's permission to speak for the left? Because he doesn't support it. Did you ask the 41% of the Dems in congress that support it, if you can speak for them? Why not ask the rest of the Dems in congress why they don't support it?

Did you say something?

Not sure of the intent of this post. Perhaps the poster might explain.

This Iran thing should not have partisan boundaries and I think we are seeing that. Yes, the majority of Republicans oppose it, as do over 50% of the Democrats in congress. I do not see it as partisan....

I like discussion on the deal itself instead of trying to make some kind of political points.

The question should be how posters feel about this deal.

By the way, you did understand the sarcastic point of the link to Bachmann ??

Who knows what that link to Bachmann was all about.
Personally, I do not like the deal. It's much too dangerous. We are giving them everything, and we are getting nothing. They get their money back, the sanctions are lifted. I'm not even worried that much about them creating a nuke. They can now buy one from the Russians. Nope, bad deal by incompetent people. A bad deal is NOT better than no deal.

Your point is well taken.

We make a deal, and within a week, the Iran military head goes to Russia IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, and we say nothing. It just disappeared from the news.

Russia, as I have tried to say and supplied links from experts is our worry.

Iran will be economically sound. Iran can now trade with those they want to trade with with NO restrictions. Iran as already announced is buying ICBMs from Russia Iran can now sell oil to Russia which they need.

Iran has always been the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Now, they can do it with no fear of sanctions or anything.

I think it is scary and while we sure are not privy to the secret briefings, it appears from the Democrats leaving the fold, they are not hearing anything to make them feel better.

THIS is part of one of the secret agreements in this deal....

"VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press."

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site - Yahoo News

It just gets better !!!