Toxic Mortgages Part Deux

Posted on November 29, 2014November 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

Remember in 2008 when the economy blew up over toxic mortgages? Remember how Freddie and Fannie, the CountryWide and AIG and Wall Street and loan defaults and foreclosures and jobs were lost and it all pointed to a secret mission to allow anyone to buy a home without having any skin in the game? Remember?

Part Deux is here. Who wants to assume control of this as it will begin to fester after 2016? Will there be a different long-term result this time?

Mortgage Lenders Set to Relax Standards

Agreement With Fannie, Freddie Potentially Paves Way for More Applicants to Qualify for Loans

By Joe Light

Some of the largest U.S. mortgage lenders are preparing to further ease standards for borrowers after the release of new guidelines this month from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .

The new guidelines, to take full effect Dec. 1, resulted from an agreement in October meant to clarify when lenders would be penalized for making mistakes on mortgages they sell to Fannie and Freddie. Lenders have blamed the lack of clarity for tight credit conditions that have made it difficult for many consumers to qualify for a mortgage.

Relaxing the lending standards potentially could make it possible for hundreds of thousands of additional consumers to get mortgages. With different mortgages where you can view from places such as https://www.moneyexpert.com/mortgages/ consumers can have with the pick of what they want.

Some of the largest U.S. mortgage lenders are preparing to further ease standards for borrowers after the release of new guidelines this month from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .

Relaxing the lending standards potentially could make it possible for hundreds of thousands of additional consumers to get mortgages.

Laurie Goodman, director of the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said the moves are “going to be big,” but she added that “it’s going to take time” to see the full impact of the changes.

The Urban Institute, a Washington think tank, earlier this year estimated that as many as 1.2 million additional home loans would be made annually if mortgage availability were at “normal” levels.

Some lenders, including Wells Fargo & Co. and SunTrust Banks Inc., said borrowers should begin to see initial changes in a few weeks, including faster turnaround times for mortgage applications to be processed.

Currently, it can take two months or longer between the time a consumer makes an application and the loan is made.

Charges Against Mubarak Dropped

Posted on November 29, 2014November 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

IN the last few days there have been deadly demonstrations in Cairo. Egypt and Israel appear to be the only two countries working to establish peace and stability in the Middle East.

Cairo (CNN) — Three people were killed, 20 others were injured and dozens were arrested during limited anti-government protests calling for the preservation of Egypt’s Islamic identity Friday, a Health Ministry spokesman told CNN.

Today there are more.

Egypt Court Drops Murder Charges Against Mubarak

Ousted Leader Remains in Jail on Separate, Three-Year Sentence

CAIRO—An Egyptian court dismissed murder charges against former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday in the killing of hundreds of protesters during a 2011 uprising against his autocratic rule, a decision that comes after the nation has shifted back toward authoritarianism.

The decision, read by the judge presiding over a panel of jurists who were considering the charges of culpability in the murder of the protesters, in addition to charges of corruption, caps a nearly four-year process that saw the former dictator sentenced to life in prison in 2012. The previous verdict, on the same charges, was overturned on a technicality in 2013.

Mr. Mubarak, 86 years old, is currently serving a three-year prison term after being found guilty on separate corruption charges this year. It was unclear Saturday if he would complete that sentence in a military hospital, where he is being held because of his frail health, or be released, officials said.

In addition to dismissing the charges against the former president on Saturday, the judge announced that Mr. Mubarak and his two sons, Alaa and Gamal, were found not guilty of corruption. Habib Al Adly, who served as interior minister under Mr. Mubarak, and six aides, were also found not guilty in the murder of protesters during clashes with police.

It was the final legal hurdle Mr. Mubarak faced after he was detained following his ouster on Feb. 11, 2012 after nearly 30 years in office. Legal experts said judicial authorities could rule that his detention could count as time served, raising the possibility that Mr. Mubarak could be freed in the coming weeks, despite his conviction on embezzlement charges in May.

Reaction to the court’s decision was muted. The courtroom erupted in cheers after chief judge Mahmoud al-Rashidi finished reading the verdicts. Mr. Mubarak smiled and embraced his sons inside the defendants’ cage.

Later, speaking to a private satellite news program by telephone, Mr. Mubarak was defiant, suggesting the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated.

“I did not do anything at all,” he said.

In Tahrir Square, the telegenic epicenter of the 2011 revolt, a handful of supporters applauded the decision while others stood in silence holding placards denouncing the verdicts as a travesty of justice.

But in dozens of homes, families of the protesters who were killed expressed agony.

“Today, we were killed again,” Amal Shaker, the mother of Ahmed Zain El Abedin, who was killed during the 18 days of demonstrations against Mr. Mubarak, said through tears. “They acquitted the officers who followed the orders and killed our sons and now they acquit their superiors—the ones who gave the order to kill.”

As Egypt’s political transition stumbled under pressure from the military, families seeking justice for the deaths of their relatives have had no relief. Nearly 200 police officers who faced charges for killing of protesters were acquitted or had their cases dismissed for lack of evidence.

Mr. Mubarak’s 2012 conviction was thrown out on appeal because of a procedural error.

Once billed as the trial of the century in Egypt, public interest in Mr. Mubarak’s journey through the legal system has waned since the nation underwent seismic political changes after the January 2011 uprising that unseated him.

Egypt held its first democratic presidential elections in June 2012, which Mohammed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, won. He was then ousted by the military in July 2013, following large street demonstrations denouncing his rule.

Mr. Morsi was imprisoned and is currently facing a number of charges in separate trials, including treason and murder, which rights groups have characterized as politically motivated.

The former general who carried out the coup, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, nominated himself for president in March and months later won against a weak opponent—reviving draconian laws against dissent as he presided over a fierce crackdown on Islamists and many of the figures who drove the uprising against Mr. Mubarak.

Legal experts said Saturday’s verdicts relating to Mr. Mubarak and the other defendants could be appealed, but there was little political will to do so.

The case had been mired in confusion and lacked transparency. Though a government sanctioned study found that nearly 900 people were killed during the 2011 uprising, the judge said on Saturday only 239 of the victims had been named in the case.

Mr. al-Rashidi, the judge, suggested during his reading of the verdict that prosecutors had erred in bringing a criminal case against the former president and that a criminal court didn’t have legal jurisdiction, leading him to dismiss the charges of murder.

He also said because of Mr. Mubarak’s advanced age and years of “public service,” it would best be left for history and god to judge him. He denied that the decision had “anything do with politics.”

The corruption charges Mr. Mubarak and his sons, along with a longtime associate, fugitive businessman Hussein Salem, were acquitted for involved the illegal sale of natural gas to Israel at reduced rates and for allegedly receiving vacation homes in exchange for political favors.

Write to Tamer El-Ghobashy at [email protected]

Obama Amnesty Edict Torpedoes Social Security

Posted on November 29, 2014November 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

If you don’t think that foreigners will be granted benefits at the expense of the legal American taxpayers, you need to think again. In a sweeping move, Barack Obama has redefined the definition of citizenship.

Stability of Social Security is at the core of the debate of Obama’s amnesty edict. The financial condition of Social Security is collapsing. The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2033, three years sooner than projected last year, the administration said. And Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, it said.

“The projections in this year’s report are somewhat more pessimistic than last year’s projections,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in issuing the annual report on the two programs, which together account for more than 35 percent of all federal spending.

Word spread like a fierce blowing wind south of the border.

Immigration Health Insurance: Undocumented Immigrants Eligible for Medicare, Social Security Benefits Under Obama’s Executive Orders

President Barack Obama’s immigration reform executive action has paved the way for undocumented immigrants to be eligible for Medicare and Social Security benefits, the White House has confirmed.

According to White House officials, undocumented immigrants who apply for work permits as a result of Obama’s executive action will be eligible for benefits because they will pay into the Social Security system through payroll taxes. The undocumented immigrants who will pay into the Social Security system, however, will not immediately receive such benefits. As with all Medicare and Social Security recipients, the individual has to work 10 years to become eligible for retirement and health care benefits.

With Obama’s immigration executive actions, none of the immigrants affected by the orders will receive federal assistance including food stamps, welfare or other income-based assistance. Immigrants will not be eligible to receive health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also referred to as Obamacare, both federal- and-state-level exchanges.

National Latino and immigrant rights groups have supported Obama’s executive action, but the belief is more can be done especially in the health sector. National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health Executive Director Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas commended Obama on addressing the record levels of deportations and injustices under current immigration laws and policies, and yet action could have been accomplished for one’s health.

“With this announcement, the president has taken a bold and necessary step to recognize the humanity of immigrant women and families — and he can and should do more. It’s time for this Administration to lift the bans on

health coverage for immigrant women and families, including those granted administrative relief, and to put an end to harmful detention policies,” Gonzalez-Rojas said.

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health executive director acknowledged that responsibility to create “lasting, comprehensive solutions” is by Congress. She said, “We look to the House and Senate to stop playing games with the lives of immigrant women and support the health of our families, communities, and economy.”

National Institute for Latino Policy President Angelo Falcon said Obama’s immigration executive action was “way too long overdue,” and it should be recognized as a “temporary band aid” on issues affecting immigrant workers and their families.

“We are also concerned that the President will not fully exercise his power of executive action to impact on all those who should be eligible for legalization, and expect that they will be shortchanged in terms of what should be basic human rights benefits such as health insurance,” Falcon said in a statement, adding the upcoming Republican-controlled Congress will take serious consideration of accomplishing comprehensive immigration reform.

As Latin Post reported, Obama’s immigration executive action will grant eligible undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2010, to be deferred from deportation for a renewable three-year period. The three-year period rule will also affect recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), who previously was allowed to stay on a renewable two-year basis. The undocumented immigrants must pass criminal background checks and pay $465 for the “work authorization and biometrics fees” and no fee waivers and “very limited” fee exemptions.

Undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. after Jan. 1, 2010, and in the future, are not eligible of Obama’s executive actions.

***

So the real fight begins and it is not racist, it is economic.

Fight brewing over Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants

A new clash over retirement benefits has come to a head following President Obama’s decision to unilaterally protect up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.

The White House now acknowledges that many of the illegal immigrants spared from deportation under Obama’s sweeping executive action will become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits once they reach retirement age.

The conservative backlash has been swift and will certainly extend into a GOP Congress’ deliberations in 2015 over how to limit the reach of the president’s immigration blueprint.

A central argument in Obama’s defense of the most extensive overhaul to the immigration system in decades was that those given reprieves from deportation would not qualify for Obamacare benefits. The president reminded critics that Dream Act-eligible immigrants previously granted deportation deferrals could not enroll in federal health exchanges.

However, Obama was less eager to wade into the debate about what to do with newly protected immigrants now paying into Social Security. He didn’t address the matter while outlining his immigration plan in a prime-time address to the nation, but White House aides later confirmed GOP suspicions about how Obama’s unilateral move would affect retirement benefits.

Analysts said that Republicans would use the admission to argue the president is misleading the public about the details of his immigration action.

“It is a bit of surprise,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who focuses on entitlement programs. “For a long time, there was an argument made by the administration that [undocumented immigrants] would not be eligible for such benefits. It does seem to be a contradiction.”

For Republicans, this debate is about far more than just Social Security. It fits into the broader narrative of painting the president as unwilling to spotlight an unpopular provision of his agenda until after it has been enacted.

“It’s Obamacare all over again, ‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” one House GOP leadership aide told the Washington Examiner. “Obama was very clear on this issue. He said no benefits. What the president says just isn’t credible. That couldn’t be any more obvious by now.”

The administration says Obama’s move is sound fiscal policy, that it makes sense to grow the tax base. They also argue that it would be unfair to force people to pay into Social Security and not reap the same benefits as everybody else.

Immigrants would have to work at least 10 years to qualify for Social Security and Medicare benefits, administration officials said, and Obama’s executive action could always be reversed by any of his successors.

Though quiet about the Social Security implications of the president’s latest executive action, the White House has long argued that comprehensive immigration reform would strengthen the long-term outlook of entitlement programs.

“Over 500 days ago, the United States Senate passed legislation with bipartisan support to improve border security, streamline the immigration process and establish a firm but fair path to citizenship,” Vice President Joe Biden wrote in an op-ed this week in Irish Central. “It would be an absolute game-changer for our economy, adding $1.4 trillion to our economy and reducing the deficit by nearly $850 billion over 20 years, and extending the solvency of Social Security by another two years.”

However, some fiscal hawks say that any short-term benefit of having more people paying into Social Security would be eclipsed by the burden of paying out benefits to potentially millions of additional people.

Republicans also point to the illegal immigrants not yet covered by Obama’s unilateral action.

“It is also important to keep in mind that while 5 million [illegal immigrants] benefit affirmatively from executive amnesty with work permits, photo ID’s and social security numbers, almost all of the other 7 million illegal immigrants continue to remain functionally immune from enforcement,” said Stephen Miller, a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. “The problem for American workers will be compounded even more when the amnesty produces the ensuing wave of new illegal and chain migration.”

Time Limit/1967 Lines/Jerusalem

Posted on November 29, 2014November 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

While the talks over Iran’s nuclear program have failed, negotiations have now been extended by seven more months. Eyes have now been turned back to the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Votes are flying, time limits are being attached and secret back-channel negotiations are no longer secret. Israel is failing to sell their position globally especially to the United Nations and to Europe. Allies of Israel, especially the United States are also working to make a deal to the detriment of the 1967 borders.

PARIS — France’s foreign minister Friday urged the international community to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within two years, as the French parliament debated whether to recognize a Palestinian state.

“At the United Nations, we are working with our partners to adopt a Security Council resolution to relaunch and conclude talks. A deadline of two years is the one most often mentioned and the French government can agree with this figure,” Laurent Fabius told MPs

***

The Secret Back Channel That Doomed the Israel-Palestine Negotiations

By Amir Tibon

The latest wave of violence in the Holy Land has prompted influential centrist voices in Israel—including former intelligence chiefs and army generals—to call for new peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. But those calling for the revival of the eternal “peace process” admit that the most recent effort, which failed miserably earlier this year, offers some harsh lessons. Since the collapse of talks back in April, many have analyzed why Secretary of State John Kerry fell short of reaching any kind of agreement. One critical fact, however, has been kept hidden until now: a secret communication channel between the private attorney of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a confidante of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The secret channel—reported here for the first time—created substantial progress toward an agreement. But it also had one fundamental flaw, which contributed to the collapse of Kerry’s entire process. Abbas’s supposed representative was in fact holding these talks without a real mandate from the Palestinian President; the concessions he discussed with Molho didn’t represent the President’s views. Parts of this story remain unsolved—most importantly, why this lack of a mandate was missed or ignored in real time. But what can be told is enough to raise some hard questions about Kerry’s effort, and offer important lessons for future attempts at reaching an agreement.

In 2010, Yitzhak (Itzik) Molho, Netanyahu’s attorney and his point man for negotiations with the Palestinians, began to hold secret talks with a person considered very close to Abbas. The New Republic has decided not to publish the identity of this person out of concern for this individual’s security. Peace process veteran Dennis Ross—at the time a special foreign policy adviser to President Obama—was brought into the discussions as well.

Since their first meeting in 2010, Molho and Abbas’s confidante focused on finding common ground—a basis for final status negotiations that both Abbas and Netanyahu could tolerate. Back then, they came up with a formula in which Israel would accept the 1967 borders (with land swaps that would allow it to annex some large “settlement blocs”). In return, the Palestinians would show flexibility regarding Netanyahu’s insistence on recognizing Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people (while clarifying that such recognition would not abridge the rights of Israel’s Arab citizens). This formula, which was discussed but not concluded or agreed upon, included a huge concession from each side—Netanyahu’s representative accepting the same borders Bibi had spent decades rallying against, and Abbas’s supposed representative coming to terms with an Israeli demand that the Palestinian president had rejected time after time, on every possible stage.

Ross tried to make these conversations more prominent with the Obama administration back in 2011, but met with little success. One source in the administration said that except for former national security adviser Tom Donilon, no one was truly interested in this backchannel at the time. Washington wasn’t the only city where the secret channel didn’t incite much excitement. Neither Netanyahu in Jerusalem nor Abbas in Ramallah gave any public sign of accepting the proposed formula. As it became clear no one was interested in their work, Molho and his counterpart reduced the frequency of their meetings.

Things changed in the spring of 2013, when Kerry began a serious push for new peace talks, visiting Jerusalem and Ramallah five times between March and July. As Kerry was laying the ground for an official negotiating track, Molho and his counterpart also renewed their backchannel, with Molho flying in and out of a European capital where the two would meet every few weeks.

Ross had officially quit the Obama administration late in 2011, but he remained involved in talks long after his resignation—even after Secretary Kerry appointed former ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk as his envoy to the official peace talks in July of 2013. Ross had no official mandate when the talks resumed in 2013, but used his personal relationships with Molho, Indyk, and Kerry to weigh influence.

In the early months of the Kerry talks, the official track, led by Indyk, stalled. As Ben Birnbaum and I detailed last summer, arguments, shouting matches, and other distractions dominated the negotiations during this period. Molho, who in addition to pursuing this backchannel was also representing Netanyahu in the official talks, showed little interest in what was being discussed there. His Israeli negotiating partner, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, and the official Palestinian negotiators, Saeb Erekat and Mohammed Shtayyeh, all expressed frustration over his behavior. “It was clear he thought this wasn’t where the important things were happening,” says a source involved in the talks.

Important things were happening, however, in the secret channel. Molho and his counterpart were busy reconstructing their understanding from 2010, and transforming it into an outline of the terms for serious final status negotiations. Building from the Israeli acceptance of the 1967 borders (with land swaps) and Palestinian flexibility on the “nation state of the Jewish people” (with equal rights for Arab citizens) demand, additional components were added. Molho and Abbas’s confidante discussed the Palestinian refugee problem in depth, and were close to finding a creative wording they thought both sides could accept. On the explosive issue of Jerusalem, the two couldn’t reach an understanding, thus postponing the discussion for later stages of the negotiations.

Kerry, Indyk, and Livni were all aware of the secret channel, and briefed regularly on progress. But Israeli officials believed that the official Palestinian negotiators had no idea about the backchannel. By December 2013, when Molho and his counterpart were finalizing their talks and working on a dramatic understanding that summed up everything they had discussed, a larger problem emerged: The Israelis began to realize that it wasn’t clear if Molho’s counterpart was truly negotiating on behalf of President Abbas.

Late that month, one of Israel’s top newspaper columnists, Nahum Barnea, reported that during Netanyahu’s prior term in office (2009–2012), Molho had a “secret Palestinian contact” with whom he exchanged messages between Abbas and Netanyahu. Barnea didn’t report on the fact that this channel was still active and important—at least in the eyes of senior people in Israel and the U.S.—but the essence of his report was correct. Netanyahu’s office refused to comment, but Abbas was quick to reply, saying in an interview that “there is no secret channel with Netanyahu, and never was one.” He added that the official negotiations led by Indyk are “the only channel of communication I have with Netanyahu.”

On the Israeli side, an argument erupted over the meaning of Abbas’s statement. Some officials started voicing concerns that Abbas truly had no idea about the state of the backchannel talks, or that he knew about them but didn’t consider them to be important. This concern was also shared by senior American officials, including Indyk, who had thought for some time that Abbas and Netanyahu did not see the backchannel in the same light. A Palestinian official close to Abbas claims that, from their very first day back in 2010, the Palestinian president had no interest in these talks: “He never took these talks with Molho seriously.”

The extent of Abbas’s detachment from the secret-channel’s product became clear in early 2014, when Kerry decided to merge the two negotiation tracks. The understanding that had developed through the secret channel was spilled into the discussions that Indyk’s team was holding with both sides over a “framework document.” Netanyahu was willing to work with the fruits of the secret channel (although he insisted on airing his reservations, and the negotiations his advisers held with Indyk over the exact wording were endless). But Abbas completely rejected what had already, supposedly, been accepted by his own negotiator. He wasn’t willing to show any flexibility on the Jewish state issue, and the idea of excluding any clear reference to a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem seemed like political suicide.

The anger Abbas expressed at the American framework caught Kerry by surprise: After all, these were all ideas his supposed negotiator was discussing with Molho. Realizing he had a problem with Abbas, Kerry tried to convince Netanyahu to tilt some of the provisions in Abbas’s direction. But the Israeli Prime Minister was not having it. “We already agreed on these issues in the secret channel,” he told the Secretary, according to a former senior U.S. official. “Bibi is angry at Kerry for opening up understandings that everybody considered a done deal, just because Abbas had changed his mind,” an Israeli Minister told me in February. But a Palestinian official rebuffed this criticism, saying that Abbas never changed his mind on anything: “He was presented with positions that no Palestinian leader could ever accept, and that he personally had spoken out against many times.”

For some, it was always clear that the positions presented by the supposed “Palestinian negotiator” in this secret channel were totally unacceptable for Abbas. Officials involved in the process admit in retrospect that there was too much wishful thinking regarding the backchannel.

A major reason for the skepticism of some people involved in the negotiations toward this backchannel, had to do with Abbas’s ostensible confidante. A number of Israeli, American, and Palestinian officials claimed that it was a miscalculation to assume this person would have authority to make concessions on delicate issues. One senior Palestinian official told me that those in the American and Israeli camps who thought otherwise were “fools.”

If Abbas really was unaware of, or not totally committed to, the backchannel negotiations, what was his “representative” telling Molho? And why did Kerry and Netanyahu treat this channel so seriously, if they had no proof that Abbas had any interest in the proceedings? Perhaps Netanyahu understood that Abbas didn’t know or didn’t care about the backchannel, but decided to keep it going, hoping to bring the negotiations to a point where he could say: “We were willing to make historical concessions, but have found out that we have no partner.” This could explain why some senior Obama administration officials have lately been saying that Netanyahu misled Kerry during the negotiations.

Then again, perhaps Abbas did know what was going on with Molho, but regretted it midway. There is historical precedent for this scenario: In 1993, Abbas held secret negotiations with Israel’s then–Deputy Foreign Minister, Yossi Beilin. The negotiations gave birth to the “Beilin–Abu Mazen Understandings,” the first-ever draft of a final status agreement. But when the document was leaked to the press, Abbas tried to distance himself from it and to minimize its importance. Some Israeli officials believe something similar happened in the last round of negotiations—that after extracting territorial concessions from Israel, Abbas backtracked on any concessions from his side. (The irony of this claim is that Netanyahu had also retreated from the positions presented by Molho in the secret channel, first by insisting on having reservations and later by going back to hardliner positions in the recent months.)

Both scenarios could serve some beautifully written conspiracy theories, but the truth could very well be much simpler: that this blunder was just a terrible misunderstanding. Perhaps what the Israelis considered a serious backchannel, the Palestinians—including their man in the room—saw as merely an unofficial exchange of ideas. Only two people can really solve the mystery, Yitzhak Molho and his negotiating counterpart. Both of them refused to comment.

Ayatollah Rebukes Kerry on Nuclear Talks

Posted on November 28, 2014November 28, 2014 by Denise Simon

The New York Times reported that Khamenei posted a statement on his personal website attacking America but approving of the decision to continue negotiations with world leaders on his country’s nuclear program.

“I do not disagree with the extension of the negotiations, as I have not disagreed with negotiations in the first place,” the ayatollah said in speech published on Khamenei.ir.

Western negotiators – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (P5+1) – and Iran failed to meet the second deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement on Monday, announcing an extension of talks that started last year.

During that time, the parties have operated under an interim agreement that has limited Iran’s production of enriched uranium, imposed stricter international inspections of the current nuclear program and stopped the country from firing up unused centrifuges. In exchange, the United States and European Union have scaled back sanctions on Iran and released portions of frozen assets.

“America is a chameleon, and every day makes new statements,” he said in comments that were to be delivered to an audience of paramilitary Basij forces, according to his website, Khamenei.ir. “It also says different things in public and in private.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in his first response to the extension of talks over the country’s nuclear program, said world powers have failed to humiliate the Islamic Republic.

“The U.S. and all the European colonialist countries gathered together and tried everything to bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to its knees, but they couldn’t and they never will,” Khamenei said today, according to state-run media.

Diplomats from Iran and the so-called P5+1 group — the U.S., Germany, France, the U.K., Russia and China — gave themselves until March to come up with a political framework and July to spell out technical steps needed for a final accord.

Where does this leave John Kerry and his reputation in Washington for failing to get a deal?

But after having preached patience for a long time, Kerry, the designated defender of the talks, is coming under increasing pressure to deliver an agreement or give up.

Although he has never said a deal with Iran would be easy, Kerry has sometimes raised expectations—as he did in September of last year, when he told “60 Minutes” that a nuclear deal might be reached in less than three to six months.

That was fourteen months ago.

In comments from Vienna Monday, Kerry dangled new hope that a long-term nuclear agreement is close at hand. “[I]n these last days in Vienna, we have made real and substantial progress, and we have seen new ideas surface,” Kerry said, expressing hope that a broad framework could be completed in just four more months.

But administration allies are beginning to worry that Kerry is chasing an ever-moving rainbow’s end.

Shortly after the announcement of the deadline extension, GOP Senate foreign policy figures John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte in a joint statement said, “We believe this latest extension of talks should be coupled with increased sanctions and a requirement that any final deal between Iran and the United States be sent to Congress for approval.”

Interestingly, the presidential waiver authorities that are included in the relevant acts have been ratified by the Congress, yet now that Obama is likely to use them, fierce Congressional opposition has emerged.

Under the Joint Plan of Action agreed between Iran and the P5+1, the US should refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. In January, Obama explicitly threatened a veto on any new Iran sanction bill. Any new sanction bill would be considered as a violation of the JPOA on the part of the United States.