The Iran deadline is not a deadline
By Jennifer Rubin

As I noted yesterday, the March deadline for the “political framework” in the P5+1 talks is fish-or-cut-bait time for Democrats who said they would vote on the Menendez-Kirk sanctions bill if there was no such deal covering all the relevant issues. But Iran’s supreme leader complained about an interim deal and now – wouldn’t you know it? – the administration is backpedaling. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki let on that the “deadline” is more like an aspiration. At the daily briefing on Monday, she declared, “Yes. It is a goal, it remains a goal, but – and the secretary has been very vocal about that. We’ve never called it a deadline. We’ve called it a goal of when we want to achieve the political framework.” Actually, that is not true.

Pskai herself last month said, “On the deadline question, which I know you’ve had in the past, the P5+1, coordinated by the EU and Iran, agreed to extend the nuclear talks until March 31st to reach a political agreement, and then June 30th to reach all of the technical details.” Sounds like they thought it was a deadline until the supreme leader decided he didn’t like the idea of a deadline. The White House spokesman as late as Jan. 28 was saying that “the President has made clear the importance of the end-of-March deadline in our own pursuit of a political framework there.”

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) tells Right Turn, “Administration officials have repeatedly spoken on record about the importance of meeting a March 2015 deadline for a so-called ‘political agreement,’ but now they appear desperate to move back the goalposts after Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei publicly said that he opposes a political agreement and wants instead a single agreement that covers, in his own words, ‘both generalities and details’.”

Moving the goal posts as been the one constant in the administration’s approach to bargaining. The regime balked about “no enrichment,” so the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) envisions that future enrichment will now be a topic of discussion. The mullahs won’t give up their centrifuges, so the administration starts talking about “unplugging” them. The Iranian negotiators refuse to come clean on its past weapons program. The administration is therefore talking about inspections without that – which of course poses a real quandary as to where nuclear facilities might be hidden. And each deadline we have seen has been waived, with a new extension and further sanctions relief. As the Wall Street editorial board pointed out, “Missile delivery systems and warhead design were make-or-break issues during arms agreements with the Soviet Union. In Mr. Obama’s negotiations with Iran, they are virtually non-subjects.” Well, the Iranians objected!

“The pattern of these talks for the past 1.5 years is that the Obama Administration agrees to a deadline that serves to hold off Congressional action on new sanctions and pressure the White House to offer concessions to Iran before the talks are extended and a new deadline set and on and on,” warns Mike Makovsky, CEO of the pro-Israel JINSA. “Given how dangerously much Obama has reportedly conceded to Iran, any deal would be a terrible deal so it’s probably best for this dance to continue. Congress should cut in before the music could stop and a disastrous deal concluded; otherwise, one wonders if Israel might.”

Click here to read in the Washington Post

The post JINSA in Washington Post on Iranian Talks appeared first on JINSA.