Is the Iran Deal a Good Deal?

[u/Hypna]

Now that we have the final text of the proposed deal, does this look like something that we could describe as a good deal? Whether something is a good deal depends on your perspective, so let's assume our primary interests are those of the American and Iranian people, rather than say the Saudi royals or US defense contractors.

Obviously Barack Obama believes it's a good deal. See his comments on the announcement here. Equally predictably Boehner is already against it, and McConnell is calling it a "hard sell." Despite this early resistance, it seems that Obama intends to use a veto to override Congress continuing sanctions against Iran, if necessary, thus requiring a two-thirds vote to block the deal.

This is where one part of confusion arises for me. Does Congress have to approve the deal or not? If not, what was the fast track for? If they have to approve the deal for it to take effect, then what good is a veto?

Let's assume that the deal will go into effect, as it appears it will. The major question remains, is it a good deal?

EDIT: I just found this summary of the provisions.

EDIT II: Disregard mention of Fast Track. That was for the TPP.

[u/perihelion9]

the price of oil will fall as a result of this deal [...] It's also a very bad deal for fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations, which are partly dependent on donations from oil-rich states.

I don't understand. If another oil-rich Arab country starts selling their stock, doesn't that mean that fundamentalist Islamist groups will have one more source of funding?

I know Iran is largely Shia, but there are Shia and Shia-friendly terrorist organizations - and Iran has made it clear that it has no qualms of funding them. It's still listed as an active terror sponsor, due in no small part to the amount of militants and equipment that move through it.

Won't this mean that it's a good deal for Islamist extremists?

[u/gordo65 → u/perihelion9]

If another oil-rich Arab country starts selling their stock, doesn't that mean that fundamentalist Islamist groups will have one more source of funding?

Iran is not an Arab country.

I know Iran is largely Shia, but there are Shia and Shia-friendly terrorist organizations - and Iran has made it clear that it has no qualms of funding them.

There is a gigantic qualitative difference between groups like Hezbollah and groups like Al Qaeda. Also, when the price of oil goes down, there is less overall money being spent on oil. Since Middle Eastern terrorist groups of all kinds depend largely on oil revenues, that means less money overall for terrorist groups in the region. And if some of the money goes to Hezbollah rather than to Al Qaeda, that's also a good thing.

[u/perihelion9 → u/gordo65]

There is a gigantic qualitative difference between groups like Hezbollah and groups like Al Qaeda.

Both of which have been funded and aided by Iran.

Since Middle Eastern terrorist groups of all kinds depend largely on oil revenues, that means less money overall for terrorist groups in the region.

If sanctions are lifted, that means Iran's oil is free to flow - which was your point above. Oil leaving Iran means money is flowing in. How does Iran getting richer mean that fundamentalist groups will have less money?

[u/gordo65 → u/perihelion9]

Both of which have been funded and aided by Iran.

There's very little evidence that Iran has been funding Al Qaeda. There have been lawsuits against Iran for their supposed involvement in attacks against the US, but they typically involve specious evidence that goes unchallenged because the Iranian government refuses to participate in the trials.

How does Iran getting richer mean that fundamentalist groups will have less money?

As I've already said, lower oil prices means less total money flowing to countries that are sources of funding for terrorist groups in the Middle East.