In the long term, I have no idea whether this deal will work. But in the short term, it will function pretty well as a psychological test for politicians and pundits who comment on it. A negotiated deal always has a better chance of success than a military strike simply because a successful negotiated deal will have cooperation of people on the ground whereas a successful military strike will not.
Anyone who object to the fact that a deal was reached (as opposed to citing particular detail they object to), isn't really interested in stopping the nuclear program. They just want to kill some Persians. Violent military action is not a means to an end, but an end in itself.
I'm not saying that anyone who criticizes the deal has homocidal tendencies. Those who point to particular problems in the deal might actually care about the nuclear issue. But people who want tough action taken against Iran, and "tough action" can only mean hurting people, stopping the nuclear program is not their goal. The goal is kicking Iranian ass. The nuclear program is just a means to that end. If the nuclear program went away, they would find some other reason to push for a strike.
Anyone who object to the fact that a deal was reached (as opposed to citing particular detail they object to), isn't really interested in stopping the nuclear program. They just want to kill some Persians. Violent military action is not a means to an end, but an end in itself.
I'm not saying that anyone who criticizes the deal has homocidal tendencies. Those who point to particular problems in the deal might actually care about the nuclear issue. But people who want tough action taken against Iran, and "tough action" can only mean hurting people, stopping the nuclear program is not their goal. The goal is kicking Iranian ass. The nuclear program is just a means to that end. If the nuclear program went away, they would find some other reason to push for a strike.
