Barry A. Klinger, originally written 5 January 2020
I think there is a misunderstanding about the thinking of opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran. The misunderstanding stems from taking the anti-Iran propaganda at face value. I think analysts on the right do not think that Iran is going to just start unilaterally lobbing nukes at Israel or even give one to Hamas to use. The same laws of survival that restrain everyone else apply to them. However the nukes do neutralize, to a certain extent, an advantage Israel and the US hold over Iran due to the nuclear asymmetry.
The Obama administration did probably about the best anyone could do in getting Iran to agree to halting its nuclear program for a while. They did this by focusing on the nukes only, without bringing in other points of conflict. But if an Iranian nuke is not the existential threat that some claim, then other considerations may be equally important. These considerations revolve around Iran’s attempts to increase its influence around the Middle East, which poses a direct threat to Israel (through Iran’s opposition to its existence) and a threat to US power in the region.
Claims that more pressure are meant to get Iran to sign a better deal also should not be taken at face value. Simply maintaining pressure on Iran through economic boycott and military confrontation are goals in and of themselves. They make life difficult for the Iranian government. If they lead to an uprising or war and regime change, so much the better (in the view of the pro-war faction generating policy in the US). If it does actually lead to a nuclear deal more favorable to the goal of boxing Iran in, I suspect that this faction will accept it, but grudgingly.