You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.
Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks. Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.
I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.
I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.
Some reasons why it was terrible -
No constraints on developing ballistic missiles that they could inevitably use to launch any nuclear weapons that they could develop after 13 - 15 years into the deal.
Issues with verification, inspectors would have to wait up to 24 days for access to sites suspected of developing nukes.
Nothing in it regarding Iran funding terrorist organizations.
It's nice to see that, when pressed, you can use the Fox News search function. Because these are a direct parroting of the irrelevant, and largely discredited, Fox News/Trump talking points. They demonstrate that, whoever came up with them, didn't understand the deal, at all. Not surprising, coming from Trump/Fox News.
To say a deal is "terrible" because it has certain provisions that expire (and long after Trump would be out of office....even if he got a second term...in the late 2020s) is ridiculous. Those provisions expire specifically so the deal could be renegotiated down the road. It worked both ways, incidentally. Our ability to cripple their economy with sanctions expired at the same time. Which is why their presence didn't make the deal terrible.
Verification at CERTAIN SITES (and they were sites that likely weren't conducive to enrichment) might take UP TO 24 days. These include certain military installations, but also certain religious sites. The truth is: Every time the inspectors made a request to visit a site (until we dropped out of the deal) that was not specifically designated in the agreement, they were granted access within 5 days, and in most cases within 72 hours. The 24 day provision was agreed upon because enrichment residue can become undetectable in a minimum of 30 days (but no less, even with "clean up"). Inspections can take up to 6 days. There's your math.
On TOP of that, inspectors had 24/7-365 access to every identified nuclear enrichment site (including reactors). AND, if, in the course of inspections another site was identified, it was immediately (as part of the deal) added to the list of 24/7 365 sites.
The fact is: The biggest foible in the agreement is that "suspicion" didn't grant immediate access to a site. The inspectors had to present their suspicions to Iran, and request access. They couldn't just show up. But the way the deal was structured, and given the timelines, the inspectors would have to have been granted access before any detectable enrichment remnants could be "cleaned up". And detecting high levels of radiation equivalent to those generated during enrichment would have instantly added the site to the inspection list.
Again, provisions that actually make sense don't make a deal terrible.
In terms of funding terrorist activity, its irrelevant. The Iran deal left in place our sanctions against Iran regarding their sponsoring of terrorism, and treated them entirely separately from their nuclear program. And they have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation or a nuclear program, which is what the deal was regarding. Including this provision would, actually, be counterproductive to the deal because, if Iran was found to be in violation (on either front), it would sink the entire deal. When a deal is focused on a specific subject, including irrelevant provisions is a terrible way to make a deal. A deal isn't terrible because it doesn't address things that are outside the scope of the actual deal. That's akin to negotiating the purchase of a home, along with a used car, at the used car lot.
As an aside, this administration has made a TON of deals with the Saudis. You know, the actual country who funded 9-11. And not ONE of them includes the provision you insist should be included in the Iran deal. Not. One. So, to be clear, you think every single deal this administration has made with the Saudis is a terrible one, right? And thus, they should be held accountable for those terrible deals?
Back on topic: You seem to be equating "we didn't get everything we wanted, on every subject under the sun" with "it was a terrible deal". I understand this confusion, since that's Trumps exact thinking "No deal is better than a deal that doesn't let me have my way, entirely". It's the petulant child approach to deal making and, so far, it hasn't worked out too well for him.
And, even assuming any one of your points deserved further consideration, NONE of them make the deal horrible. They might mean further negotiation and tweaking is necessary. But dropping the deal...one which all objective parties say Iran was in compliance with....for NO DEAL (and an unfettered Iran) is flat out stupid. NO DEAL is the terrible deal. And it's one that has led us to the brink of another foreign war (isn't that something you have a real issue with?).
Trumps brinksmanship has, so far, yielded NO appreciable upsides for the US. Again, THOSE are terrible deals, and terrible deal making.
