This is what the left needs to believe, that the Iranians - the most outlaw of outlaw regimes - suddenly started playing nice.

They weren’t.

If that's the case, though, it would apply just as equally to any deal that Trump is able to strike. Why is he even talking about an agreement, if an agreement with Iran isn't worth anything? If you believe this is true, then the fact that we're pursuing an agreement as the goal of this war - rather than eliminating the regime altogether - means we've already lost. Because nothing in the agreement can be relied upon.

Right? Why even wait to see what's in the agreement, if we know that they'll breach it?

Of course, we know why Trump is pursuing an agreement - because on the whole it was successful in restraining Iran's nuclear program. Iran increased their nuclear stockpile leading into the JCPOA, but once the JCPOA was signed, falling from 8,000 kg before the JCPOA went into effect (which is what your article was citing) down to one or two hundred kilos:

statista.com - Irans stockpile of low enriched uranium

....of very-low-enrichment uranium. Which is vastly better than the massive store of highly enriched uranium they didn't have while the JCPOA was in place, but they created as soon as it was gone.

The whole point of the JCPOA was not merely the agreed-upon targets, but the enforcement and monitoring regimes that enabled us to more easily detect Iran's activities. So that the efforts to evade the unilateral sanctions and import controls that you identify above (the second German report detailing efforts from before the JCPOA) would be less successful.

But again - if you believe that Iran will cheat in any deal because of the nature of the regime - doesn't that mean any deal Trump enters into will be "indefensibly ass," as you put it? Isn't entering into a deal of any kind an "indefensibly ass" outcome?