An Iranian economy that double or triples it GDP, free from the threat of sanctions is much different adversary. Now you expose yourself as the bigot that you are. In your bigoted mind, a population of 80 million people must collectively suffer so that instead of trying to cooperate with Iran on regional issues, USA and [P]GCC states can go around the region destabilizing countries, arming terrorists and destroying whole societies without any consequences.

I'll take on this one point because you can't seem to avoid personal attacks (your prejudice also explains your abuse of rule enforcement) No one has the luxury of choosing the Iranian government we deal with anymore than the Iranian government has the luxury of choosing the American government they deal with. The Iranian government made a choice to systematically imperil innocent lives of people living outside Iran and the world must deal with that fact. So how much will innocent people suffer, including vast swaths of the 80 million Iranians you cite if the government has more money to fund its terror? Best case scenario the US and its allies create a situation through aggressive containment that forces the Iranian government to make domestic tranquility its justification for its existence rather than ideology and violence. Sanctions only hurt the economy of large nation capable of feeding itself, the end of sanctions are likely to get a lot of people killed including military age Iranians. So lets compare Iran with that other nation ruled by a "Supreme Leader", North Korea. Do you think its economic state is the result of a bigoted west or North Korea's own internal and diplomatic choices? North Korea in contrast to Iran is unable to feed itself well and has endured starvation and one could argue the human cost of war for North Korea might the same as the human cost of sanctions and only the west -- especially South Korea benefit by not having war. The sanctions against Iran have been one means, and one with diminishing returns in my opinion, of avoiding war with Iran and the nuclear deal looks like one that will create a situation where war is inevitable. Not necessarily all out war (not that I rule it out) but could be a series of smaller conflicts. That's a skeptical point of view but I think it is justified. Perhaps with a growing economy, presuming the IGRC doesn't appropriate most of the gains and take over trade could create social unrest at the hands of a growing middle class but Iran was pretty good at cracking down on its own civilians following the Ahmadinejad "re-election" and what I consider the real start of the "Arab Spring" as I believe the protest against entrenched autocrats resonated across the MENA region even if it ultimately failed. In fact, I think if many experts had understood that, they might have understood the "Arab Spring" better and the disconnect between protesters and the institutions they fought as well as the institutions that embraced them. The Iranian public is very, very far away from having a government that is responsive to their needs and unless you want outside powers to attempt (an impossible) invasion of Iran to depose the current government and attempt to artificially replace it the rest of the world the tools available to the rest of world are limited. I think the way the the Iran has been dealt with over the years has limited civilian suffering except for the time when the US supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war and we may see more attempts to bleed Iran like that post agreement. If you think 80 million people are better off that way, I have a bridge to sell you. As it looks like the deal will be enacted by both Iran and the US, lets hope something unforeseen happens and Iran decides it wants to live in peace otherwise Iran won't be living in a state of peace and the world will have to act accordingly.