Can somebody educate me

[Proud Liberal Dem]

about how this deal with Iran for them to give up developing nuclear weapons is so "dangerous" to the world/Israel as opposed to us refusing the deal, the net effect of which would continue to punish Iran with sanctions but would not guarantee inspections or monitoring of Iran's facilities. Furthermore, the deal does not, as I understand, take the threat of military force off the table and the US/Israel could still attack Iran militarily if they were determined to pose a legitimate threat, right? So, remind me again how this deal is supposed to be "dangerous"? Am I missing something? Seems like it's Republicans whom want to torpedo the deal whom are putting everybody at risk because not doing a deal with Iran keeps them having to submit to inspections, the sanctions will just continue to antagonize them, and a military strike of any kind will only exacerbate tensions and make it MORE likely, not less, that they will develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent if nothing else.

[NET]

1. From what I read it's inspectors having access

and inspections without time lines set.

I don't know if it's all bullshit or not what I read?

If inspectors want to access to a site the Iranians shouldn't be able to say in a month or even a couple of weeks time.

Inspectors should be able to come and go with only a couple of days notice at the most.




http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/31/iran-nuke-deal-leaves-secret-past-covert-work/70718504/




As world powers and Iran moved closer to an agreement on Iran's disputed nuclear program, the deal under discussion lacks guarantees that Iran won't secretly try to develop nuclear weapons.

That is the conclusion of both supporters and opponents of an agreement, based on Iran's refusal to give inspectors unfettered access to every suspected nuclear site.

It is an argument made by vocal critics, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who says Iran can't be trusted to pursue only a peaceful nuclear program.

Supporters of an agreement acknowledge that its tough monitoring requirements may prove less than airtight to prevent cheating, but they argue that a deal is better than no agreement with no inspections