EVERY SINGLE MILITARY PERSON
EVERY SINGLE INTERNATIONAL EXPERT
EVERY SINGLE STATE DEPARTMENT EXPERT
And all irrelevant. Your appeal to (unspecific) authority is a weak argument anyway, like appeals to authority in general, but more to the point it is an argument that the people you are criticizing are wrong on this issue, not that they have the same opinion that you do, about how beneficial this treaty may be, but don't want it because of their own self-interest.
Not all the opponents have much in the way of self-interest on this issue. For those that do, that still doesn't mean they are lying, they could still be correct, or they could be wrong. If the later they could be honestly wrong. Self interest can help convince you of the general merits of some idea, without any dishonesty being involved, it would be bias, but not necessarily lying or acting deliberately against the interest of the country. I know you think they are wrong, but people often are wrong, while still being well-motivated.
And you haven't even established that the treaty is in the interests of the country. I haven't looked in to it enough to be sure, but the only argument you've made for it is one of the weakest types of arguments, an appeal to authority. X is Y because Z says its Y, as if experts on an issue (even when they do pretty much all agree which isn't the case here) could never be wrong.