So if the IRGC immediately surrenders power, hands over the uranium, immediately stops production of ballistic missiles/drone and turns the country over to a council of citizens then immediately disbands the Basij that’s indefensible ass in your mind?

Nope. But that's not an agreement - that's them taking action. If they agreed to do that at some point in the future, I would fully expect that you would regard such a deal as being indefensible ass, because they could not be trusted to comply with it. If they just take unilateral action, there's no need for an agreement; if there's an agreement, it means that the parties contemplate future actions.

Plus, I think you know that there's absolutely no chance of that being the agreement that's being negotiated. Reports conflict, of course - and the Administration has a practice of announcing that they're close to a deal when none later materialize. But even the very most favorable version of the agreement that's been floating around provides for Iran to follow future commitments regarding the substantive issues. I mean, by definition - they can't promise not to have nukes in the future without that being a commitment that has to be implemented in the future, because even if they got rid of everything today they could (secretly) restart their nuclear program in the future.

It's fine if you want to wait until the terms of the agreement are released (should one materiallize) to declare it indefensible ass.