"The nuclear deal had a relatively invasive verification regime"
A 'relatively invasive' inspection regime where you had to get permission in advance from Iran to visit 'military sites', and nearly all of the restrictions were temporary.
"what specific terror acts are we speaking of?"
There's a pretty massive civil war you may have heard of, where Iran is on the side which uses chemical weapons. Or maybe we could mention sending lots of IEDs to Iraq to kill Americans. Or bombing the AMIA center to kill Jews. And we can't forget the Rushdie affair. Really, the list is endless.
"The US's latest policy of total humiliation"
Got it.
Demanding the regime to halt interference in foreign lands == "total humiliation"
Holding hostages like Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe != "humiliation".
> A 'relatively invasive' inspection regime where you had to get permission in advance from Iran to visit 'military sites', and nearly all of the restrictions were temporary.
On the other hand, you might now get less access, an Iran as a nuclear threshold state, and the war to stop it might not happen after all.
> There's a pretty massive civil war you may have heard of, where Iran is on the side which uses chemical weapons. Or maybe we could mention sending lots of IEDs to Iraq to kill Americans.
Those things at least are not terrorism by any reasonable definition.
'Detecting radioactive traces' isn't anywhere near enough.
You need to 'detect' centrifuge building and storage otherwise their breakout time ( = time to get nukes from the time they decide to just ignore the arrangements) is reduced to nothing and there isn't enough time to stop it.
Unfortunately, centrifuges don't have to be loaded with radioactive material before activation, so a large construction program would be undetectable under this scheme (especially given that some research and construction of centrifuges was allowed).
Another problem is actually the long trace detection time: that allows Iran to claim any trace is from the old nuclear program, and not a new one (that claim already happened. It's probably right this time). Since Iran was never asked to account for the old program, it can make the claim for any new site ever. It's not trivial to disambiguate whether a sample is new or old after a certain threshold, these are trace amounts after all. There would be plenty of room for doubt. With no possible proof, there would be no support for action against any new program.
"These things are not terrorism..."
I gather that Iran's support for genocide/mass ethnic cleansing is no biggie, but if you allow that in service of the deal, I wonder what you will allow in the future.
A 'relatively invasive' inspection regime where you had to get permission in advance from Iran to visit 'military sites', and nearly all of the restrictions were temporary.
"what specific terror acts are we speaking of?"
There's a pretty massive civil war you may have heard of, where Iran is on the side which uses chemical weapons. Or maybe we could mention sending lots of IEDs to Iraq to kill Americans. Or bombing the AMIA center to kill Jews. And we can't forget the Rushdie affair. Really, the list is endless.
"The US's latest policy of total humiliation"
Got it. Demanding the regime to halt interference in foreign lands == "total humiliation" Holding hostages like Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe != "humiliation".