If by "them" you mean weapons, then where is that evidence. Research doesn't inherently mean that they are in pursuit of nuclear weapons. This has been debated many times before. There are nations all over the world that research nuclear technologies. Why aren't we implementing the same strict level of policies or sanctions with them?
Because none of those countries have a radicalized leader that has spat out anti-west rhetoric repeatedly? Research doesn't mean that? They're just conducting the research for the hell of it? How is that not incentive enough to reach a deal with them?
What stakeholders have to gain from this.
You've got to be kidding me. Suppressing a nuclear threat in one of the most volatile regions in the world and you're asking who's the stakeholders? Pretty much every country except South American ones
It could be Israeli lobby
Then why are they against this deal?
Let's talk about what we gained from investigating Iraq in 2003!
I already pointed how that this situation is not comparable. Unless you can point out how I was wrong, this is not a valid argument.
Obama's argument for the deal in the first place was to deal with the matter at hand. Now his opposition in Congress proposes doing nothing and letting things carry on as usual. So it confuses me, as well as the American public why Republicans prefer a military option, and yet do not support a treaty that support the provisioning of evidence.
Read my top level comment elsewhere in the thread as to why the GOP is saying what it is. I believe you're missing the point to their rhetoric
If there is evidence of weapons production, then what?
But the evidence of weapons production could happen EVEN WITHOUT A DEAL. The deal lets us inspect it. Why would Iran be MORE likely to continue prevention when they know it will be discovered?? You still haven't addressed this point
These are assumptions you created based on what I said. I never made those assumptions at all, and in fact left my argument fairly open-ended, which you decided to pigeon hole with faulty logic. Nice try. Who's the delusional one now?
Really now? "seems like a great opportunity for a conservative candidate to have an excuse to go to war" 1) conservative candidate = GOP. excuse being Iran broke the deal. great opportunity to go to war = they want to pursue military action. How is your argument NOT assuming these things?
I wasn't attacking your character, just your knowledge of the matter at hand.