Yesterday the President of the United States broadcast to the American people his mindset as to the great prospects for peace through his hard pressed Iran Nuclear Deal. I appreciate the President's openness and I believe he truly feels that this is a good deal and best for everyone. Though sincere as he is I believe that his viewpoint is not in touch with the reality of the world and the region of the Middle East. I applaud his desire for a non nuclear Iran, that is everyone's desire. But I believe he is overly optimistic about Iran's compliance with the different aspects of the deal.Throughout his speech he unequivocally stated that Iran will reduce their enriched uranium and that they would be removed from Iran. Where to I wonder perhaps Russia? He stated unequivocally that Iran will reduce its centrifuges. Why not just build more underground. He again said unequivocally that Iran would be under constant surveillance and inspection by IAEA inspectors. And yet the actual terms of inspections are still being hashed out between Iran and the IAEA. He stated that Iran could not move radioactive materials and waters without their knowing it. How can we monitor what goes on in deep underground facilities?If everything that the President said was actually 100% verifiable and adhered to by Iran then it would be a good deal. But the President who along with John Kerry said this deal is not built on trust; is in reality building his whole push for the acceptance of his deal on his trust in Iran not to cheat. But what if Iran does cheat? What if the inspectors cheat? There also must be trust in the inspectors. He states that he would then have the ability to again implement sanctions or even use military action. He stated previously in his message that unilateral sanctions don't work. He has also stated that he would not use military actions unilaterally. What could he or any other President do if Iran's cheating allows them to get a bomb early?The President started his speech by evoking the memory of President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. He stated how Kennedy defied all of the war mongers who wanted to go to war over the Russian missiles placed in Cuba. He made it seem that it was diplomacy that averted a nuclear conflagration with Russia. But in reality it was Kennedy's unmovable demands for the removal of these missiles even if it meant going to war that led the Russians to back down. He also implemented a blockade of Cuba and built up our forces at the borders of the USSR and had our bombers flying and our subs prowling. It was diplomacy from a standing of superior military might that won the day.It is fitting that he used this comparison of the Cuban Missile Crisis and President Kennedy's actions during one of the most dangerous times in all of history; because if Iran gets a bomb early we will then see another critical time in history, a new American Missile Crisis. It would be America in crisis not Iran. What would the President do then? Would he risk war with not only Iran but possibly also Russia and China and Pakistan and North Korea? No President would risk that. It will be America that backs down this time from military power and not Russia or Iran.There would be no stopping Iran then to build a number of bombs and use their new power to further degrade our standing in the world. There would be no stopping Saudi Arabia and other nations in the region from acquiring as many nuclear weapons as possible. Then our alliances with Israel that the President so proudly extolled would become just lip service. The world will turn their eyes and look back upon the once great leader of the free world, the United States, and turn around and walk away.