The Iran deal is legitimately a *crap* deal from almost every angle. The criticism of Obama being Iran's lawyer? Basically true.
But that being said, the boat has sailed on this one and the deal is important to our European friends. And the US has bigger fish to fry with Russia, China and North Korea.
Preserve the deal of course. But anyone thinking that the deal was any kind of achievement for Obama is kidding themselves. Non-partisanly, it is a textbook case in bad diplomacy and dishonest political marketing.
But that's oh-so-typical of Obama. The Iran deal is legitimately exhibit A of a guy who thought of himself more as a global citizen and global figure than fierce advocate for America's interests. "MAGA" and "America First" has it's roots in exactly the nonsense thinking that the Iran deal sprung from. America was an aggreieved party in the Iran-negotiations, not a mediator. When then did the Obama Administration adopt the tact of basically acting as a mediator between the American "Iran consensus" (minus Obama's Administration)and Iran? That's why this deal is fucked.
Or let me put it another way:the break down in the Normal Order in the Senate? This is exhibit B of that. Instead of constructing a deal that Obama could get through the Senate for approval, which is the way things should be,
instead Republicans and Democrats put on a grand show whereby a "resolution for disapproval" was blocked 3 times by filibusterer (58-42), and because of that, the deal was executed without Congressional objection. That is such an ass backwards, dishonest, bad way of governing. And the thing is: Obama went into negotiations knowing that would be the route. Similar to how with the Paris Climate change agreement, it was constructed as an "executive agreement" rather than a "formal treaty" with absurd mechanisms for withdraw.
Obama defenders say it's because Republican Congress would have blocked anything. As a foreign policy-centric Republican, I can tell you that's absolutely not true. It's that Obama's White House (if not the President) didn't even bother to try. For the record, I don't want us out of the Paris Accord either, but how that was negotiated and (laughably) "ratified" by this country (note: it wasn't, it's flat out lying political talk to say it is) is emblematic at everything wrong with Obama's second term foreign policy.
Process matters. Process legitimizes. The problem with the Iran Deal and the Paris Climate Change Agreement domestically is the exact same problem as using reconciliation to pass Obamacare in 2009: short cuts and sneaky-if-legal political/legal routes for big ticket items that are not inclusive to all parties may get you passed political roadblocks, but they dog the legitimacy of the thing in question for years. John McCain has been saying exactly this for weeks with Trumpcare, mentioning how that if Trumpcare passed via reconcillation, the next time Democrats retake power in Congress, they'll do the same thing to reverse Trumpcare, since that is how Obamacare was passed in the first place.
Or to put it another way, if the Iran deal or Paris Climate Change treaty could not get 66 votes in the Senate under Article II Section 2 rules, the negotiations never should have stopped and Obama's job wasn't done. That is the process and the process doesn't give a fuck about the "fierce urgency of now" and shit like that. The framers made the 2/3rds majority threshold for treaties challenging on purpose and the run-around Obama did and the questionable legitimacy from that is exactly the situation they sought to avoid.
People living over 220 years ago knew a lot better than Barry O about the nature of legitimacy.
But it's also not worth re-litigating. Any energy spent on Iran is energy not spent on Russia, China and North Korea. The Iran ship has sailed. But never again. Going forward, 66 votes, or no deals.