Well, DF and Ricky don't seem to get too exercised about the insults they hurl at one another--only Owen and I seem to be bothered...The use of Doofus is strictly verboten, though, per ruling by the friendly mod...I have to say I am adding the insult "alleged mind" to the insult toolbox...Admit it, RJ and DF--you would miss Ricky if he were not posting...

freeman3 wrote:Well, DF and Ricky don't seem to get too exercised about the insults they hurl at one another--only Owen and I seem to be bothered...The use of Doofus is strictly verboten, though, per ruling by the friendly mod...I have to say I am adding the insult "alleged mind" to the insult toolbox...Admit it, RJ and DF--you would miss Ricky if he were not posting...

Um.

You don't want the answer to that.

Aside from your lack of spelling capability, you are being rude and Dr. Fate was scolded for his personal attacks. You should apologize as well.

Name calling does not serve ANY of us well.

freeman3 wrote:Well, DF and Ricky don't seem to get too exercised about the insults they hurl at one another--only Owen and I seem to be bothered...The use of Doofus is strictly verboten, though, per ruling by the friendly mod...I have to say I am adding the insult "alleged mind" to the insult toolbox...Admit it, RJ and DF--you would miss Ricky if he were not posting...

A little. I certainly would not miss the spelling and punctuation errors. Even more annoying are the endless repetition of the same point and the inability to answer questions after quoting them. Misquoting others, confusing others, misconstruing what others are saying, and labeling something factual evidence when it is merely another opinion (or the same opinion quoted again) are also very annoying.

I do think Ricky adds a voice to the discussion. And sometimes he is persuasive, although often he is anti-persuasive. There are only about 6 of us who regularly post now, and we all have our distinct views, so I do want him to continue to post. I just wish Ricky would clean up his act. I know that is all insulting, but it is not name calling.

Not that Doofus is verboten, it is the personal nature of the words. He can act like a doofus, but not be caaled one. Just like when RickyP called DF an idiot. No apology back on that one, though.

I find that even more distressing to not admit fault.

Fate

Wait. So, they don't want Iran to go nuclear, but they'll let them go nuclear if Congress votes down the deal?

Its not a question of "let Iran go nuclear". Its a question of whether the entire coalition would be willing to go back to the table to try an achieve something that is not achievable. The complete submission of Iran.
Neither China nor Russia have an interest in that. And without the complete group, sanctions will end, and the negotiations will have no force behind them.
In the recent briefings provided to Congress this was fully explained to congressional members. Many who have the same disdain for reality as Fate I guess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Its magical thinking to imagine that the US can unilaterally get Iran to agree to something more than what the entire group managed.

Fate

But, the deal permits Iran to go nuclear, if Iran keeps the deal, in 10+ years

.
The options, should Iran move on nuclear are the same in ten years as they are today.
But the deal give 10 years of security, and an opportunity for Iran to demonstrate further that it has no nuclear weapons ambitions. And access to Iranian nuclear sites (in 24 hours) or anywhere else in Iran in an extended period. Which is certainly far better intelligence than what is currently provided.
The option is not renewed negotiations. Its a dependence on Iranian unilaterally eschewing nuclear (which it has actually been doing), or military options. By the way, the military option doesn't go away even if the deal is fully sanctioned and in force.
So, what does vetoing the deal actually accomplish?
1. the end of coordinated sanctions
2. the end of cooperation with Russia and China
3. the estrangement of the European partners, and the end of any credibility for US foreign policy
4. the recognition of the USA's current dysfunction as a modern state.
5. Iran will continue to do what ever it wants in the region, which in some cases in is common cause with the US (battling ISIS), and in some cases is not. (sponsoring a resistance to Israel in Palestine)


bbauska

Aside from your lack of spelling capability, you are being rude and Dr. Fate was scolded for his personal attacks

Shall I enumerate for you the countless times you've not commented on Fates intemperate language? If you decide to consistently police him, I'll abide by your criticisms. I can only imagine that Fate wants to have labels thrown at him, since he enjoys doing it so much himself.

Fate

Mr. Cotton's resume is far more impressive than Mr. Obama's

Cotton pretends to understand the science behind nuclear inspections. And he purports to understand how it is possible for the Iranian government to submit to any demand that the US decides to make. He is a lawyer by education, and a platoon commander in logistic by military experience.
Balanced against Cotton's vast expertise, we hae the careful analysis offered by IAEA negotiators (past and present), by American military leaders and scientists, by European scientists and military leaders, and by Israelis security experts.
I doubt Cotton has a inkling about how Iranians feel about the ability of the US to deal honestly with Iran. Perhaps he could reflect upon how he might feel if a democratic government of his country had been subverted and replaced with a despotic monarchy by another country? Or how he might feel if another country had supported its enemy in an 8 year war? Or how the President of another country had broken his own laws to offer weapons to them in exchange for hostages? Or how one of their civilian airliners had been shot out of the sky?
Perhaps Mr. Cotton could offer some expertise on why he thinks a nation that had that kind of experience might not trust the USA? And might not be interested in unilateral negotiations with them? especially since the preconditions for talks seem to be complete submission to any and all demands.
Unilateral negotiations would go no where. The Iranians aren't disposed to dealing with the US without the support of the other nations at the table. Cotton is guilty of typical right wing magical thinking that imagines that what their friends at the table are saying (Germany, UK France) has no value over what he imagines is possible.

Ahh yes. The defense of my 10 year old. "He did it too!"

I will tell you the same thing I tell my children. Take responsibility for your own actions and words. To you I would add this. Quit acting like a 10 year old.

As RJ said, Perhaps you should spell better than a 10 year old as well.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Wait. So, they don't want Iran to go nuclear, but they'll let them go nuclear if Congress votes down the deal?

Its not a question of "let Iran go nuclear". Its a question of whether the entire coalition would be willing to go back to the table to try an achieve something that is not achievable. The complete submission of Iran.

Red herring. "Complete submission" would be like, what, the unconditional surrender of Japan in WW2?

The question is this: is the world ready to concede a nuclear weapon to Iran?

The answer, from you, seems to be, "If this deal goes down in Congress, then our allies will permit Iran to get a bomb. If the deal is approved (actually "not disapproved"), then Iran will get a bomb but it will be 10 years or more down the road." So, either way, Iran gets the bomb.

In the recent briefings provided to Congress this was fully explained to congressional members. Many who have the same disdain for reality as Fate I guess.

Funny. I disdain reality? We have a President who can't even say "Islamic" and "terrorism" in the same sentence--as if it doesn't exist--and I "disdain reality?"

We have a President who said Iran would have to dismantle its nuclear program. Now, Obama says they'll have to wait 10-12 years for a bomb.

One of us disdains reality. It's not me. I'll let you sort it out.

Its magical thinking to imagine that the US can unilaterally get Iran to agree to something more than what the entire group managed.

Again, and again, and again . . . you are indeed a broken record.

The options, should Iran move on nuclear are the same in ten years as they are today.
But the deal give 10 years of security, and an opportunity for Iran to demonstrate further that it has no nuclear weapons ambitions.

When has Iran EVER demonstrated it "has no nuclear weapons ambitions?"

Be specific.

And access to Iranian nuclear sites (in 24 hours) or anywhere else in Iran in an extended period.

Not true. 24 hours for "known" nuclear sites. The other areas require 24 days and are subject to appeal and delay. This is not "anytime, anywhere" inspections.

Its a dependence on Iranian unilaterally eschewing nuclear (which it has actually been doing), or military options.

One of us "disdains reality." When has Iran "unilaterally eschew[ed]" nuclear power? The whole reason these negotiations were needed is because Iran, in violation of the NPT and UN sanctions, was pursuing nuclear weaponry. Why was Stuxnet used? For fun?

Talk about "magical thinking." You've just wished away the entire reason for the "treaty" in the first place!

By the way, the military option doesn't go away even if the deal is fully sanctioned and in force.

The military option? Um, you do know who the President is, right? The whole idea of a "military option" must make the mullahs double over in laughter.

So, what does vetoing the deal actually accomplish?
1. the end of coordinated sanctions
2. the end of cooperation with Russia and China

Danger! Conflict alert!

You've already told us Russia and China were done with sanctions before this. Russia had a meeting with a general who is under a UN travel ban. So, newsflash: they're not cooperating with us BEFORE the vote in Congress.

3. the estrangement of the European partners, and the end of any credibility for US foreign policy

Comedy alert!

Exactly where, do you suppose, US foreign policy has any credibility at the moment? For most Obama apologists, the best they can do is Myanamar. Any other suggestions? (Note well: I look forward to your punch line, er, I mean "answer")

4. the recognition of the USA's current dysfunction as a modern state.

Ooh, we better watch out! ISIS might take over!

5. Iran will continue to do what ever it wants in the region, which in some cases in is common cause with the US (battling ISIS), and in some cases is not. (sponsoring a resistance to Israel in Palestine)

Now, that is pretty funny. If you could make it just a bit more pithy, I would have laughed.

Really, where, o where is Iran not doing what it wants now? Oh, and if Congress approves the deal--what IN THE DEAL restrains Iran from sponsoring terrorism and trying to kill Americans?

Be specific. Please cite the wording. Thanks.

Shall I enumerate for you the countless times you've not commented on Fates intemperate language? If you decide to consistently police him, I'll abide by your criticisms. I can only imagine that Fate wants to have labels thrown at him, since he enjoys doing it so much himself.

Actually, I would not have noted it at all if danivon had not made an issue of it.

Fate

Mr. Cotton's resume is far more impressive than Mr. Obama's

Cotton pretends to understand the science behind nuclear inspections. And he purports to understand how it is possible for the Iranian government to submit to any demand that the US decides to make. He is a lawyer by education, and a platoon commander in logistic by military experience.

Let's see, so I said Cotton's resume is more impressive than Obama's. So, naturally, you are now going to cite Obama's superiority . . .

Balanced against Cotton's vast expertise, we hae the careful analysis offered by IAEA negotiators (past and present), by American military leaders and scientists, by European scientists and military leaders, and by Israelis security experts.

What? What does that have to do with Obama?

I doubt Cotton has a inkling about how Iranians feel about the ability of the US to deal honestly with Iran.

So, based on your vast knowledge of Tom Cotton, please tell me how you came to this conclusion. Be specific. Thanks.

Perhaps he could reflect upon how he might feel if a democratic government of his country had been subverted and replaced with a despotic monarchy by another country? Or how he might feel if another country had supported its enemy in an 8 year war? Or how the President of another country had broken his own laws to offer weapons to them in exchange for hostages? Or how one of their civilian airliners had been shot out of the sky?

Are you trying to say Obama is more empathetic to our enemies than Cotton? Otherwise, there's no relevance. But, hey, nice anti-American diatribe.

Unilateral negotiations would go no where. The Iranians aren't disposed to dealing with the US without the support of the other nations at the table. Cotton is guilty of typical right wing magical thinking that imagines that what their friends at the table are saying (Germany, UK France) has no value over what he imagines is possible.

Well, you've certainly made your case. I'm sure everyone is convinced . . . everyone in your basement.

fate

The answer, from you, seems to be, "If this deal goes down in Congress, then our allies will permit Iran to get a bomb. If the deal is approved (actually "not disapproved"), then Iran will get a bomb but it will be 10 years or more down the road." So, either way, Iran gets the bomb

I said, and I have to repeat because you paraphrase what you require rather than cutting and pasting a quote to respond,
if the deal goes down that Iran WILL NOT gain a nuclear weapon. For at least 10 years they won't even be able to make any progress towards a bomb and in 10 years they will be further behind development then they are today.

If the deal doesn't go down Iran is , according to Republicans and Nethanyahu, months away from a bomb.

Which is better?

Fate

When has Iran EVER demonstrated it "has no nuclear weapons ambitions?"

Be specific

.
From an analysis by Christopher Boland.

Myth 5: Iran is on the brink of producing a nuclear weapon.
US, Israeli, and other western intelligence agencies have been predicting
an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb since 1979. A Christian Science
Monitor article summarizes the lengthy history of these assessments:
Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink
of nuclear capability, or—worse—acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not
new. For more than a quarter of a century Western officials have claimed
repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is
always declared ‘unacceptable’ and a possible reason for military action, with
‘all options on the table’ to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance
dominated by the U.S. and Israel. And yet, those predictions have time and
again come and gone.19
This long and inconvenient trail of errant predictions is not likely to
persuade those who are absolutely convinced Iran is bent on acquiring
nuclear weapons. After all, in Aesop’s fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the
wolf is real and it does attack the shepherd’s flock. However, equally
plausible explanations for the fact that Iran has thus far failed to acquire
a nuclear weapons capability include: (a) Iran has no intent of doing
so; or (b) existing policies, sanctions, and other activities including suspected
covert operations (assassinating Iranian scientists and infecting
Iran’s nuclear facilities with computer viruses) have effectively deterred,
delayed, or prevented Iran from producing a nuclear weapon

.

Fate

Not true. 24 hours for "known" nuclear sites. The other areas require 24 days and are subject to appeal and delay

It "up to 24 days" for sites not known or identified as nuclear sites.
Experts say that 1) constructing a facility to do nuclear work is difficult construction and easy to identify. and 2) any attempt to hide use of radioactive materials is futile.
So whats your point? The 24 day delay is because the Iranians don't want to endure countless unjustified inspections of unrelated areas. As a sovereign nation - i think they earn the right to a certain territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Fate

You've already told us Russia and China were done with sanctions before this. Russia had a meeting with a general who is under a UN travel ban. So, newsflash: they're not cooperating with us BEFORE the vote in Congress

Quote me.
Russia and China are signed on to this deal and following the deal. IF the deal falls through - they are done with sanctions.
Their participation is reliant on acceptance of the current agreement.
(People say I repeat the same point. Maybe because you avoid retaining whats been said and paraphrase in order to reply. (try copying and responding)

Fate

Oh, and if Congress approves the deal--what IN THE DEAL restrains Iran from sponsoring terrorism and trying to kill American

Nothing. But they won't have nuclear weapons.
Whats to stop them sponsoring terrorism now?

Fate

Actually, I would not have noted it at all if danivon had not made an issue of it.

I appreciate your thick skin, if not your thick skull.

Fate

Are you trying to say Obama is more empathetic to our enemies than Cotton?

I'll say he understands them better. Has a far greater appreciation for the expert opinions offered by nuclear scientists and regulators, his military leaders and the political leaders of other nations.
If you want to deal with your 'enemy" you must first understand him.

BTW Trump would go through with the deal. So that's an interesting comment which will raise some questions about the wisdom of opposing the deal among his section of the Republican faithful (About a quart of them right?)

In thinking about our discussion here, I started comparing it to Diplomacy. Most of the posters are veteran (and successful) Diplomacy players. The decisions made in Diplomacy are very complex. You have to assess the strategic position and whether you should change your current strategy; you look at the tone of letters (and volume)for clues to players' intentions; what do certain moves and builds portend; your knowledge of other players and their tendencies; the typical moves and strategies of each country; the weaknesses and strengths of each country; assess news from players about other's intentions and their accuracy; stalemate lines and the need to get past them or hold them; how vulnerable you are to attack from another country and whether you should take defensive action; what are your best tactical moves, whether you assess these will be countered, the risks and benefits with different sets of moves, what your opponent is likely to do, what you think your opponent thinks you are going to do and is likely to do in response, how aggressive or conservative your opponent typically is with his moves, etc. And in particular you have to assess what an ally is going to based on the position, correspondence with them, the benefits that you think are apparent to them from working with you as opposed to the benefits of attacking you, any changes in tone and volume of letters, news from other players and the overall strategic position of the board and whether that makes an attack by your ally more or less likely. The analysis is endless.

But when it comes to the assessment of the Iran deal... The inspection system is bad, no it is good, etc...do we really think that we are going to make sophisticated assessments in playing a game and our State Department did not similar assessments here. How desperate was Iran to get rid of sanctions? What are China, Russia and Europe's willingness to stick with sanctions given certain outcomes in negotiations (that is whether we or Iran is blamed for the failure in negotiations)? How much was our assessment as to what Iran would be willing to concede in negotiations? How long could Iran survive under sanctions (indefinitely)? What provisions did we need to ensure that Iran could not develop a bomb? What is our assessment of Iran's chance to develop a bomb within the next years under the current agreement? what was wrong with the agreement with North Korea and what needed to be done differently to make sure there was a different outcome? What is our assessment of a military option being successful and the diplomatic and military fall- out from it? The benefits from Iran helping against ISIS? The damage that Iran could/would do with additional revenues? If signals were made to take positions off of the table what was the thinking behind it? What was the assessment of whether it was possible for Iran to significantly cheat by reason of the 24 day system for inspection of new sites? What assessment was made as to whether we could restart sanctions if Iran cheated? What assessment was made as to what to do about minor violations? Under the current agreement how could Iran develop a bomb? What is our level of certainty that Iran develop a bomb within 10 years under the current agreement? What was our assessment as to whether Iran would have ever agreed to dismantling their nuclear program in return for ending sanctions?

Without in-depth assessments of these questions and others, opposition to the deal is just partisanship. Judgments had to be taken on non- obvious decisions and any successful critique needs to be more in-depth than Obama wanted a deal, he got fleeced, and Iran is a bad country.

rickyp wrote:fate

The answer, from you, seems to be, "If this deal goes down in Congress, then our allies will permit Iran to get a bomb. If the deal is approved (actually "not disapproved"), then Iran will get a bomb but it will be 10 years or more down the road." So, either way, Iran gets the bomb

I said, and I have to repeat because you paraphrase what you require rather than cutting and pasting a quote to respond,
if the deal goes down that Iran WILL NOT gain a nuclear weapon. For at least 10 years they won't even be able to make any progress towards a bomb and in 10 years they will be further behind development then they are today.

Right, so they will still get a bomb--the only question is when.

If the deal doesn't go down Iran is , according to Republicans and Nethanyahu, months away from a bomb.

Which is better?

Neither one. Let me put it another way:

"Would you like terminal cancer or would you rather your children have it?"

Me, personally, that's not a great choice.

Obama is championing the "let your children deal with it" position. That's in keeping with his position on the Debt, so he gets marks for consistency. When it comes to leadership, he gets a big, fat 'F.'

Fate

When has Iran EVER demonstrated it "has no nuclear weapons ambitions?"

Be specific

.
From an analysis by Christopher Boland.

Myth 5: Iran is on the brink of producing a nuclear weapon.
US, Israeli, and other western intelligence agencies have been predicting
an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb since 1979. A Christian Science
Monitor article summarizes the lengthy history of these assessments:
Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink
of nuclear capability, or—worse—acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not
new. For more than a quarter of a century Western officials have claimed
repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is
always declared ‘unacceptable’ and a possible reason for military action, with
‘all options on the table’ to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance
dominated by the U.S. and Israel. And yet, those predictions have time and
again come and gone.19
This long and inconvenient trail of errant predictions is not likely to
persuade those who are absolutely convinced Iran is bent on acquiring
nuclear weapons. After all, in Aesop’s fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the
wolf is real and it does attack the shepherd’s flock. However, equally
plausible explanations for the fact that Iran has thus far failed to acquire
a nuclear weapons capability include: (a) Iran has no intent of doing
so; or (b) existing policies, sanctions, and other activities including suspected
covert operations (assassinating Iranian scientists and infecting
Iran’s nuclear facilities with computer viruses) have effectively deterred,
delayed, or prevented Iran from producing a nuclear weapon

.

Wonderful quote, which I did not edit since you seem to object to. Now that I've left it there, would you please bold for me, so that I can see it, the part in which Mr. Boland addresses my question. :Let me help you. I asked, "When has Iran EVER demonstrated it "has no nuclear weapons ambitions?"" That it "hasn't done so" does not mean it is not trying.

Fate

Not true. 24 hours for "known" nuclear sites. The other areas require 24 days and are subject to appeal and delay

It "up to 24 days" for sites not known or identified as nuclear sites.
Experts say that 1) constructing a facility to do nuclear work is difficult construction and easy to identify. and 2) any attempt to hide use of radioactive materials is futile.

"Experts" also say Iran could use undisclosed locations to calibrate centrifuges and do other non-radioactive work critical to the development of a bomb.

So whats your point? The 24 day delay is because the Iranians don't want to endure countless unjustified inspections of unrelated areas. As a sovereign nation - i think they earn the right to a certain territorial integrity and sovereignty.

You're funny. Let's see . . . do the Yemenis have that right? Yet, Iran is involved in fomenting civil war.

If Iran was in compliance with previous UN resolutions, they wouldn't be facing any of this. If they weren't pursuing enrichment beyond anything needed for civil uses, they wouldn't be facing any of this. Iran did this. Iran is responsible.

Fate

You've already told us Russia and China were done with sanctions before this. Russia had a meeting with a general who is under a UN travel ban. So, newsflash: they're not cooperating with us BEFORE the vote in Congress

Quote me.

Wait. Are you really denying you said this? Really? How much you want to bet? The only way I won't find this is if you edit your posts. How much? C'mon! Put your money where your fingers are.

Russia and China are signed on to this deal and following the deal. IF the deal falls through - they are done with sanctions.

Um, wait. I think I just found it. I said, "You've already told us Russia and China were done with sanctions." Now you said, "If the deal falls through, they are done with sanctions."

Newsflash: the deal does away with sanctions. So, by your own words, I'm right.

Their participation is reliant on acceptance of the current agreement.

Participation in non-sanctions? Yeah, that's valuable.

The only thing Russia and China will be good for going forward is trying to stop us at every turn.

(People say I repeat the same point. Maybe because you avoid retaining whats been said and paraphrase in order to reply. (try copying and responding)

No, they say it because you do it.

Fate

Oh, and if Congress approves the deal--what IN THE DEAL restrains Iran from sponsoring terrorism and trying to kill American

Nothing. But they won't have nuclear weapons.
Whats to stop them sponsoring terrorism now?

Nothing--and they do it.

So, logically, it's pretty STUPID to give them $150B more to commit terror with without at least TRYING to restrict bad behavior, isn't it? (You can't answer this without admitting the emptiness of your position, so you won't answer it)

This is like paying a guy to stop robbing your store while he's still holding your family hostage. Don't you want him to stop both?

And, the fact that China and Russia are indifferent to Iran's terror support speaks volumes. If they weren't indifferent, they would also have wanted it in these negotiations.

Fate

Actually, I would not have noted it at all if danivon had not made an issue of it.

I appreciate your thick skin, if not your thick skull.

Danivon, we've got a spill on Aisle 5! Surely, you object!

Fate

Are you trying to say Obama is more empathetic to our enemies than Cotton?

I'll say he understands them better.

Sure, he does. He keeps giving them what they want. It's like your parents understood you better than a distant relative, so they gave better Christmas presents. Good point.

Has a far greater appreciation for the expert opinions offered by nuclear scientists and regulators, his military leaders and the political leaders of other nations.

Is that your objective opinion or your subjective opinion?

Look, when Jimmy Carter says our standing around the world is worse than when Obama took office, you've got your work cut out for you saying that Obama has done anything well or understands anything in terms of foreign policy.

After all, 1 1/2 years ago, he (the Great Man) said ISIS was "the jayvee team." He's the guy who chided Mitt about Russia being the #1 geo-political enemy. Yet, military experts serving under Obama have said it is in fact Russia. Translation: Obama sees the world as he wants it to be, not as it is.

If you want to deal with your 'enemy" you must first understand him.

Well, not all of us have the benefit of having attended a madrasa.

BTW Trump would go through with the deal. So that's an interesting comment which will raise some questions about the wisdom of opposing the deal among his section of the Republican faithful (About a quart of them right?)

What is a quart of Republicans?

Yeah, as usual, you misfire. Trump said he would go over the contract--and he said he's very good at finding loopholes. Then he said he would enforce the letter of the deal, making Iran miserable.

So, do try to get it right.

freeman3 wrote:Without in-depth assessments of these questions and others, opposition to the deal is just partisanship.

If so, then support of the deal is just partisanship too.

True. I don't have nearly enough info to really assess whether this was the best possible deal. The broad outlines seem reasonable to me and I support the president.

fate

Newsflash: the deal does away with sanctions

No it doesn't. The sanctions are loosed only upon verification of compliance to the deal.
If Iran is found in contravention the snap back of sanctions can occur with only the US, EU, France, Germany and UK voting... But Russia and China, even if they don't vote for the snap back, are committed to it...
On the other hand if the current deal falls through, the US will have demonstrated, once again, that it is an unreliable partner and Russia and China will use that excuse to end their cooperation and participation in sanctions. (India and Japan too)

You really don't understand the deal do you? (Perhaps its willful ignorance?)

Fate

So, logically, it's pretty STUPID to give them $150B more to commit terror with without at least TRYING to restrict bad behavior, isn't it?

First, its their money. Its been seized with the compliance of the participating nations in order to force the agreement that's been reached. If the deal falls through, then a lot of the money will be released as a result of the collapse of the deal.
Reneging on the deal now, and keeping the money, is tantamount to simply stealing the money. (And Iran has complaints about the theft of oil revenues by the US and UK for years so this simply confirms the nature of the West to everyone in the Middle East.)
Second, they have many needs for those funds. Mostly infrastructure improvements.
Third, according to you they've been sponsoring terrorism even without access to those funds. That's something they seem to do effectively on the cheap....
Fourth: Maybe they'll use some of the funds to help fight ISIS..... Since they are the only effective military in the region that opposes ISIS maybe that's not such a bad thing.

The objective of the deal was to get Iran to commit to a verification process that ensures that they can't build nuclear weapons. The objective has been met.

Fate

What is a quart of Republicans?

A miserable, angry mass of old white men. Looks kinda like a bottle of curdled milk. Thinks as effectively as well.