I respect your intelligence and the links you provided good context to the deal as it is written. I don't want to get into a link battle, but there are just as many credible articles that take the opposing viewpoint. Thus my claim of a lopsided deal. And these aren't articles from say conservative circles such as Nat'l Review, Weekly Standard, or Breitbart.
Is it wrong to negotiate? Absolutely not, trying to defuse the nuclear stand-off with Iran has been an on-going issue over several administrations.
In 2009 Iran walked away from a deal in Geneva that would have given them civilian fuel enriched outside of the country for peaceful energy purposes. Since then they have tirelessly played a cat and mouse game with the IAEA getting moving production to secret-military locations. One can only conclude from these actions and proclaimed aspirations that they do want the bomb and have already become experts at concealment from inspectors. Under the new plan a side-deal with the IAEA would allow Iran's own nuclear experts to carry out their own inspections. This seems like a step-backwards if we seek more stringency in the inspection game.
It's not just Republicans who are opposed. Take Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who summed his opposition with the following quote.
"Of course if the Iranians violate the agreement and try to make a dash for a nuclear bomb, our solace will be that we will have a year's notice instead of the present three months. So in reality we have purchased a very expensive alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time."