On each of your points: * A lot of American politicians have made it abundantly clear that they want the deal to fall through and the US has made it clear that they don't like the current Iranian adminstration and see them as part of "The Axis of Evil", so it's really not that unreasonable that they wouldn't trust American inspectors to be impartial. * It would be a bit naive to expect any country to forgo having missiles in their arsenal in general, but especially when they specifically have so many enemies around them and are situated in such a volatile region. * A bit rich coming from the US considering the 'moderate' rebels it armed and supported/supports in Syria, and with it's continued support of Saudi Arabia. *They shouldn't have removed sanctions because then there won't be sanctions anymore? * The US had to pay money it owed to Iran and this is somehow unfair? And as you say it's also unrelated to the deal so what's your point?

You seem to be under the impression that the deal was business deal between two equal parties, whereas it was more akin to the US working as security for a bank and deciding to let one of the customers access his account and speak to other customers after not having let him do so for a few years because he didn't trust him.