and it will go the same way...

obama made a pact with the devil and the devil will have its due. according to the "joint comprehensive plan of action [jcpoa]," iran will be crowned as a legitimate member of the non-proliferation treaty along with all members without admitting that it has been violating the npt and having an illegal nuclear weapons program. iran will retain all of its nuclear facilities, including its underground facility at fordow. iran will be allowed to continue r&d on advanced centrifuges. the heavy water reactor at arak will be rebuilt and modernised for "peaceful nuclear research." there will be a comprehensive lifting of all united nations sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions. look at who will monitor violations and implementation of the jcpoa: a joint commision of iran and the er3+er3 will monitor the implementation of the jcpoa. there will be no snap inspections, no inspections anywhere anytime. so who is laughing so hard: well who else but the totalitarian genocidal shia terror regime and its foreign minister.

My political instinct is if the above "main points" are the heart of the deal. Then out right rejection through whatever legislation puts the USA in the position of being the muck raker of the drama. Leaving the worst possible outcome, an Iran playing us as the bad guys and a working assumption of Iran going for a crash program in building atomic bombs. Iran doesn't even have to play the card, "Aren't you the guys that said, what?, about WMDs in Iraq." We will have our own boneheads to remind us of that. Nope the best thing for the USCongress to do is to assume an oversight role in monitoring the progression of deal through various stages ever on the watch for contradictions in behavior, ie getting caught doing something that undermines the spirit of agreement like being found to be operating undeclared sites and seeking to hold agreement hostage to actions that are counter productive to trust building to name two types of oversight dichotomies. To me the most importing thing for the USCongress to do is clearly identify where in the agreement exist the language that is parse to the point that two opposite positions can be construed to mean the same thing in the agreement but allows both to come away determined to advance their interests. Nothing per say is wrong with that, since one of the natural possible outcomes of such agreements are win-wins. However it is human to find itself faced with intransigent agreements. Unfortunately, the higher the stakes, the more it is human nature and some would say virtue, to ask for verification because not do so is asking to go unanswered the possibility of the gambit is being played. I'll tell you a little story... I always find it interesting how life orders those moments where your caught with your hand in the cookie jar and the offended party gives you the way out of saving face. It is funny how often the caught directly proceed to act like they have gotten away with it or it's not my bad and never ever stop to think the offended may try to further test you. Some would say that is how a children behave. So if by arrogance it is meant to describe our foresight to say, "Don't want to be treated like a child, you want the respect of equals then don't expect us to not seek verifications. It is pure supposition logic for us to have this position. You can't negotiate that away when it is the whole formularization building towards trust. Even if an agreement manages to undermine the formularization in the fine print so application of verification becomes implossible, that is in of its self is a disconcurrence that will be clear atleast to one of the parties, since the other party may be thinking its just cookies and not something like atomic bombs we are talking about.