Our official position on the deal is that it is probably sort of okay. All the People we respect endorse it. No one we have some confidence in has opposed it. Many people we do not have a good opinion of have opposed it. It wins on points.
As we stated above, if a neutralist foreign policy were in place, there would have not have been any need to have negotiations.
What should a neutralist attitude toward Iran be.
As we have noted in prior posts, William S. Lind has spelled it out,
America's grand strategy should seek to connect our country with as many centers of order as possible while isolating us from as many centers and sources of disorder as possible.So, if Iran is a center of order, we cooperate with them where we can or have to, and as they are on the opposite side of the world, that should not be too often.
Then again, as they are where they are, there should not be too much need to bug them unless they actively bug us. We have a history with the Persians, but I don't want to get into who started it. We should not try to continue it unless we have to.
Then again, If Palestinia can build an ordered state, we can cooperate with them, as we could with the Israelis and the Andorrans for that matter.
Notice, cooperate does not mean ally.
Now there is one state that is a bit rogue. Granted, it made a good effort in the negotiations, but it feels it necessary to bother the Russkies for silly reasons. We shall let our readers, few as they are, figure that one out.