By 1999, the Clinton administration recognized that the 1994 agreement with North Korea was useless. They were not abiding by it. But so near at the end of his term, Clinton did not want to react, which would set a precedent to pin the next administration -- assumed to be Gore at the time -- in enforcing.
In Clinton's defense, although he signed it, he did not want to negotiate. Jimmy Carter negotiated the 2-party agreement, despite both Clinton's and Gore's vocal objections, which everyone in the group of 4 (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) agreed by 2004 was always setup to make the US look like the "bad guy" -- vindicating W. (who, in reality, continued the same Clinton approach of "deliver in protest") -- and we are still paying for it to this day.
The only difference is that Iran's agreement was with more than just the US. The sad thing is that it's resulting in the same as North Korea, as predicted. They have no intention of abiding or otherwise disarming. As Hans Blix said it best in 2002 ... the only way you get disarmament is for a country to completely disclose everything.
Libya and South Africa did.
Iran, Iraq and North Korea never have.
Iran never fought a war and lost.
North Korea fought a war, but didn't lose (stalemate).
Iraq fought a war, lost and signed terms they never abided by (the US legal justification for 2003, the end of hostilities was invalidated).
Even Jimmy Carter, who supports the Iran deal, says the same things he did after the North Korea deal -- admitting its far better for them than the rest of the world, while there's no way to enforce it. Iran will continue it's financial, military and covert operations, just as North Korea did, violating terms as much as North Korea continued to do.
And the second the US runs off to the WTO or World Bank to cut off Iran for violating the agreement, they will withdraw from the agreement, just as North Korea did. Which is why those on the left have admitted anonymously that the agreement does nothing but "buy us a few more years."
