Were these the same physicists who told Netanyahu three years ago that Iran was only weeks away from getting a bomb, or were these the guys that told George W Bush that Saddam was about to make a nuclear weapon?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/44110448...-mideast-is-obama-indifferent/?#sp=show-clips John Sununu makes some interesting points which demonstrate Obama is not a Christian by siding again with Muslim actions.
Without a deal though and under the status quo of sanctions what impetus was there for Iran to stop developing a nuke?
Not to forget that there was a regime of inspections going on and all of those showed that Iraq didn't have WMD's. The inspections where stopped when it became inevitable that the US was going to invade. In fact what is forgotten is that the authorization for force that passed Congress technically wasn't a declaration of war but authorization for the President to force Saddam's regime to comply with UNSC resolutions that put inspections in the first place.
Not only are you abstracting yourself from the details, which you could clearly read and understand at any time but likely refuse to because it won't corroborate your three years hunch, you're arguing from an abstract viewpoint that negotiators have long considered. Or perhaps you consider yourself far more versed in diplomacy and game theory? Iran's world standing is in the dumps which is a different position than they've historically been in. Earning and regaining respect of their peers is part of it. The opportunity costs for being a regional player without nukes is much larger than being some teetotalling failed state like N.Korea that shows up on the news when they need handouts. This deal will disrupt the Middle East and likely cause conventional arms races. So the world weighed that prospect (with consideration that shackling Iran like some step child locked in the basement isn't a sustainable plan), against a nuclear Iran with far less to lose.
