U.S.A. and Iran -- questions about the deal

Admittedly, my understanding of the intricacies of the "P5 + 1 and Iran Nuclear Deal" is imperfect -- which puts me in good and plentiful company because my guess is that not more than 1 in 10,000,000 people on the planet have a perfect understanding of this agreement.

After reading overviews of the agreement, doing some research, and absorbing the reasons that some have for opposing the agreement, a few straight-forward "backgrounder" questions came to mind.  Here are those questions (some with answers); they could be directed to anybody, but probably most especially to those in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who are opposed to the deal or thinking about opposing it:



Question 1.  If you do not trust Iran to abide by the agreement -- seemingly the fundamental issue to the opposition -- then what makes you think that without the added monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities provided by the current agreement you will be able to do a better job of noticing any nuclear weapons development during the time needed to negotiate another agreement?
Answer 1.  (Beats me, but let's hear Senator Mitch McConnell's answer, if he has one.)

Q2.  Given that the agreement in front of you required almost two years of intensive negotiations, after a period of about a decade during which all the preliminary mating dances took place, and also given your concern that Iran is now within a year or so of being able to develop a nuclear weapon, what makes you think that a new agreement can be successfully negotiated and implemented within the next year?
A2.  (See Answer 1.)

Q3.  Do you understand why your intention of prohibiting Iran from having any kind of nuclear program cannot be accomplished by any agreement produced by any set of negotiations conducted by any Presidential Administration, whether Democratic or Republican?
A3.  (A truthful answer by one of these Senators or Representatives would be either "No, not really" or "Yes, I understand, and I admit that I have been foolish.")  Iran is legally entitled to a nuclear program.  The reason behind this is that Iran has long ago accepted the Nonproliferation Agreement (NPA), which provides its signatories with the right of conducting peaceful nuclear programs.  Iran, according to the NPA, is entitled to its own nuclear programs, within the strictures of the NPA.

Q4.  Why was Israel not a part of the recently-concluded negotiations?
A4.  Israel has never signed on to the NPA.  From a purely legal standpoint, and for practical reasons, Israel would probably be left out of nuclear negotiations with any nation on Earth.

Q5.  Why has Israel not signed the NPA?
A5.  Because it has an arsenal of 120 or more nuclear weapons, and it does not want to admit that they exist.  The NPA provides for the existence of only five nuclear-armed nations:  the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China.  India and Pakistan, which both have nuclear weapons, never signed the NPA.  North Korea, also nuclear-armed, signed the NPA, but then revoked its status so that it could conduct its nuclear program without international restrictions.  If Israel were to want to join the NPA, it would have to submit itself to the types of intrusive inspections and monitoring that the deal imposes on Iran.  Israel does not want to do that because it knows that those inspections would reveal its nuclear weapons.

That is enough questions for the moment.