Better Deal's, Or Treaties Only Come After War.

IRAN NEGOTIATIONS REWIND AND REVIEW

Obama forged an unprecedented coalition of nations to accomplish NO NUKE negotiations. Mission Accomplished....the coalition even more so than the negotiations if you ask me. History might agree when we are soon at deeper odds with China and Russia who freely do lots of business in Iran and could soon force the U.S. to check Iran and it's enabler's long before this deal is done. 

Iran did not have to agree to peaceful nukes during the period of sanctions nor did they. RETURNING TO SANCTIONS IS A RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO = Iran does whatever they choose as America and allies (not China or Russia) fight via economic choke holds. Whichever potential status quo you find most effective (American/Allies sanctions only or G5+1 sanctions) could limit the access to nuke building money. But it instantly gives Iran more reason, more passion and more room to function UN-MONITORED; a nation that the opponents of the deal don't trust WITH monitoring would be much less trustworthy UN-MONITORED.

TO THE NATION UNDER THEM, ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ARE AN ACT OF WAR.

Un-monitored nuke behavior AND MORE SANCTIONS ARE THE SAME THING and is why war, or the serious threat of war, would be the right thing to do next if our hostile sanctions didn't create a more docile and agreeable Iran. Are those of us who support the deal suppose to assume that war would be avoided even if sanctioned Iran continued to create nukes during sanctions? (and why wouldn't they if you really think about it?)

#2016 will be an election determined by women and Hispanic and Hillary
could help herself with an Hispanic running mate on her ticket.  Did  Bob
Menendez disqualify himself by vocally opposing the Iran deal?
Is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro someone to watch?

Maybe war is not the ONLY alternative, however, opponents of the deal hardly offer another realistic alternative outside of more sanctions and A BETTER (nondescript) DEAL. 

Why a better deal instead of the best deal in the land/world/universe/galaxy? We call them deal's because each side has to give up something to make it happen. What opponents seem to want is called a nuclear treaty- and those only happen after you win a war.

Up Next?  If Marco Rubio has moved out front before his time, who will be
the Hispanic hopeful (and maybe Hillary's running mate) to fill that void?

Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer are playing re-election politics and have calculated that opposing helps more than it hurts politically. These men have never endeavored to describe what a better deal looks like or how sanctions alone can encourage Iran to be kinder towards its enemies?