Yeah, nah, a pinkie promise means nothing.

It's definitely great optics for Trump, though. Tons of people who don't understand that literally all Trump got was a non-binding pinkie promise will think of him as the president who solved North Korea, but really he accomplished basically nothing. Calling it a deal is generous.

It's hilarious how the Iran deal is seen as impotent but a pinkie promise isn't. Like, really, get real.

And for the record, I'm all for peace with North Korea. I just find the congnative dissonance surrounding this whole thing funny. The very same people who thought of the Iran deal as having been impotent, now think a pinkie promise isn't. The very same people who thought the Iran deal didn't go far enough and rejected it - finding it preferable to scrap the whole thing because they thought it was [i]that[/i] bad - have now adopted the "any deal is a good deal" stance with regards to the North Korea """deal""". 

And by the way, what politicians thought of the Iran deal means nothing. They're politicians. Why you are bringing up their concerns as if they matter on any level is beyond me. The Iran deal was working as intended, and while it did not place permanent limitations of the Iranian program, it was the best we were realistically going to get. Now we have nothing and no chance of getting Iran back to the negotiating table, so it's funny how the criticism is always that the deal only delayed Iran. Now there's nothing delaying them or serving as a stepping stone towards something better, so.. uh, great job?

EDIT: Also, again, nothing in the North Korean deal is binding in any way, shape or form. At best, the North Korean "deal" is as useless as you say the Iran deal was. And hell, at least the Iran deal had provisions actively enforced and monitored by the international community.