Deadline passes in Iran talks; Kerry refuses to give up on crap deal

Apparently negotiation deadlines mean about as much to the Obama Administration as those famous red lines in Syria. They're more of a guideline. A suggestion. Come to think of it, they mean nothing at all. If you're bound and determined to get a deal, any deal, even a horrendous one, you're not going to get up and walk away just because the deadline you imposed has come and gone.

---

The same can't be said for his counterparts from France, Russia and China - all of whom apparently recognize when something has become an exercise in futility. They've left their underlings to keep an eye on Kerry while he rushes headlong into a deal that makes Iran a nuclear power and threatens Israel's very existence. It's Obama's last chance to score a foreign policy "success," after all. You can't let the security of the free world, let alone some silly deadline, get in the way of that. Meanwhile, the one thing that might put Obama and Kerry in a stronger negotiating position, enabling them to actually get an acceptable deal, they steadfastly resist:

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., the lead Republican sponsor of the legislation imposing new sanctions on Iran if talks fail, on Tuesday renewed his call for the bill. "Rather than rush headfirst into a disastrously bad deal, the administration should work with Congress to shift the burden of accepting a good deal onto Iran," Kirk said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "The president could do that by signing into law the Kirk-Menendez legislation, which would empower the president to impose new sanctions if Iran fails to meet the major June 30th deadline or if Iran is not complying with the interim deal." Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., had co-sponsored the legislation, and along with other Democrats agreed to put the effort on hold while talks played out. If he and other Democrats join Kirk in pressing anew for the sanctions bill, the Obama administration has warned it could create turbulence for the talks themselves. But supporters of the legislation argue it would only apply more -- and needed -- pressure on Iran to negotiate in good faith.

We've talked before about what a terrible negotiator Obama is. This is a perfect example. Obama and Kerry don't want Kirk-Menendez passed because they think it would aggravate the Iranians, and they want them in a positive frame of mind to get them to a deal. That demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how you negotiate a real, sustainable agreement with an opposing party - especially one that is not inherently trustworthy. The Iranians are going to operate according to their view of realpolitik, not according to their mood. They don't want to make any concessions at all - on uranium enrichment, on inspections, on ceasing support for terrorism, on anything. It doesn't matter if they're aggravating or whistling while they walk. They're going to protect their interests as they see them. If you want to get them to give on anything, you have to make them believe it's in their interests to do so. The prospect of further sanctions might be the one thing that would do that, and signing Kirk-Menendez would put that prospect on the table unmistakably. But Obama won't sign Kirk-Menendez because he doesn't want to negotiate from a position of strength. And Kerry won't adhere to his own deadline because he absolutely, positively will not walk away from the table no matter what. The Iranians are not stupid. They're evil. They're crazy. But they're not stupid. They can read Obama's motivation, and because of it they have no motivation at all to do anything but resist, make more demands and keep pushing back. Why not? Kerry won't walk away no matter what. Our allies can see what a joke this has become, but America is all in. We're going to get this deal no matter what we have to give up, and no matter how bad it turns out to be. And you thought Democrats couldn't be resolute. Of course they can, for what they really want.