Washington Post – June 8, 2015 – First it was only France. Now it is the entire European Union. The Associated Press reports, “The European Union is telling Iran to cooperate with a stalled U.N. probe of suspicions that it worked on atomic arms if the country wants a nuclear deal that will see removal of sanctions. The cautionary EU statement comes ahead of a June 30 target date for such an agreement.”  Without disclosure of past military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s program, it is impossible to have an effective inspections regimen. The inspectors would not know where to look. That, after all this time, Iran is still unwilling to make its scientists available, for example, and provide a look into its program should tell us a lot about its intentions to give up its nuclear ambitions. It would be nice if the U.S. negotiators would be as publicly emphatic and rule out a host of face-saving measures for Iran (e.g. an agreement to work it out later).
It’s possible the parties will meet the June 30 deadline — the Obama administration has become expert in capitulating — but I would not count on it, judging from reports:
Some observers close to the talks doubt the differences can be bridged by month’s end. “They have not made a lot of progress since April,” said Robert Einhorn, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and an Iran nuclear negotiator at the State Department in Obama’s first term.
One issue is what role, if any, [Secretary of State John] Kerry’s injury might play in the home stretch. Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a former U.S. State Department nonproliferation official, said that Kerry’s hospitalization for a broken femur could provide a reason to extend a June 30 deadline he called “harmful to the western negotiating position.”
“Kerry’s accident probably plays to western advantage,” Fitzpatrick told an audience at IISS’ Washington office on Thursday.
Certainly the Israelis are pushing for an extension, since they clearly believe no deal is better than a bad deal.
Israel, along with Persian Gulf nations and many U.S. lawmakers, says that the U.S. is appeasing Iran at the expense of its traditional regional allies. They say Iran plans to build nuclear weapons, which Tehran denies.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that while the Iranian government opposes any changes to the framework agreement, it is open to an extension to the talks.
“We would not limit ourselves to a timeframe,” he said in comments broadcast on state radio in the capital, Tehran.
As for Congress, an extension of the talks may mean that, pursuant to Corker-Menendez legislation, lawmakers would have additional time to consider the deal. But more important Congress would again be faced with a choice: Allow the president to negotiate endlessly or turn up the heat on Iran with new sanctions? When last the Democrats spoke up, 12 of them had promised a vote on Menendez-Kirk after March 30. With the passage of the final deadline, they’d be hard-pressed to — but predictably would — stall again.
It is obvious the president does not have sufficient leverage or won’t use it. Otherwise Iran would have agreed to a deal by now. It is logical then for Congress to turn the screw a bit, but also to begin more robust sanctions against Iran’s economy for its support of terrorism, its role in supporting Bashar al-Assad, its continued ICBM program (which has no purpose other than to deliver a nuke) and its conduct in destabilizing Yemen and the rest of the region.
For now Senate Foreign Relations staff say the emphasis is on a series of briefings and hearings this month to prepare members for congressional review of a final deal if one is reached. Tuesday’s briefing with the energy secretary and the directors of U.S. nuclear laboratories was arranged to help members understand in more detail the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. Wednesday’s hearing with former U.S. diplomats to the Middle East focused on the implications for U.S. interests in the region. Another briefing, this Wednesday, will consider verification and compliance. Additional briefings and hearings on other elements of a deal are expected later this month.
Beyond that Congress would be wise to lay down a marker as to the substance of an acceptable deal. Widespread and bipartisan concern gripped the Senate when the terms of the framework came to light. They can remedy its shortcomings and help short-circuit a rotten final deal by setting out the terms under which it would give a thumbs-up to a deal. Those terms include full disclosure of PMDs, go-anywhere inspections, shipment of excess fissile material and centrifuges out of the country, the dismantling of Fordow and the gradual lifting of sanctions (no upfront bonus). None of these should really pose a problem since the administration at one time or another has said all these are critical parts of the deal. The only problem would be if President Obama wanted to take any deal, no matter how bad.
As a bipartisan solution, Democrats and Republicans might consider the following: Passage of a bill (with no filibuster or veto) laying out the terms of a final deal; and a requirement for the administration develop within 60 days a coherent approach to ending Iranian aggression in the region. In exchange Congress for now would not pass Corker-Menendez, although it may move forward on sanctions for other Iranian conduct. It is not ideal, but it might be enough to get both parties on the same page while making it that much more difficult for Obama to give away the store.
 
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.