As members of President Biden’s team are packing for a Vienna trip next week, eager to reinstate a 2015 deal that was the diplomatic crown jewel of the Obama era, three House members are raising questions about Washington’s involvement in a sanctions-busting deal funneling cash to Iran from South Korea.

President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, CIA director William Burns and Iran pointman Robert Malley put forth a rosy picture, publicly. These architects of the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action insist that before allowing further concessions they’d like to address some of the deal’s weak points.

Can they?

The Senate has yet to confirm as deputy state secretary the nomination of the original deal’s top negotiator, Wendy Sherman. Even now, though, the dynamics that allowed Tehran’s negotiators to dictate terms to her in 2015 are back. As then, the mullahs play hard to get while the administration tempts them with cash.

In late March, Washington reportedly authorized South Korea to release $1 billion in frozen oil funds that went, via Switzerland, into the mullahs’ coffers. Earlier Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps had seized a Korean ship, demanding a release of frozen funds in return for releasing it.

That’s the deal Representatives Bryan Steil, Gregory Steube, and Jim Banks address in a March 25 letter to Secretary Blinken. Will the State and the Treasury Departments allow such transactions “before Iran re-enters into compliance with the JCPOA?” they ask.

Right. Remember the much ballyhooed impasse so widely reported in the administration’s early days? Iran demanded an end to all Trump-era sanctions before negotiations could restart, while Mr. Biden’s negotiators insisted Iran first needs to reverse all its JCPOA violations.

Well, as the House members suspect, American-imposed sanctions begin to thaw even as Iran further enriches in newer, faster centrifuges. The Islamist regime in Tehran still blocks inspection — and the violations that Tehran acknowledges may be just the tip of the iceberg.

Never mind. Next week at Vienna, the remaining five countries that agreed to the 2015 deal will meet with Tehran’s diplomats and, separately, with Washington negotiators. That choreography, reportedly demanded by the Iranian side, is meant to convey that the Biden administration and Iran are still far apart.

But are we? The Iranians are due to hold an “election” in June. The vote is, if anything, likely to toughen the mullahs’ demands. The regime is eager to re-sign the original deal that allowed them to enrich both themselves and, soon, uranium, too. To achieve that, as Foreign Minister Zarif has said, “We are willing to choreograph moves” with Washington.

It all resembles an elaborate routine that ends with Astaire and Rogers amorously gazing at each other just before the final, inevitable, graceful dip.

Not everyone is happy. In a letter sent last week to the Biden administration, 43 Senators led by Democrat Robert Menendez and Republican James Risch detailed steps that could lead to bipartisan support for a new Iran deal. Among other items, they call for consultation with America’s friends in the Mideast.

“The recent Abraham Accords provides hope that our partners and allies can work together to further regional cooperation,” they note.

Yet, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries directly threatened by Iran will not be represented in next week’s indirect talks in Vienna. Instead, interlocutors from France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and China will hop between hotel rooms housing American and Iranian diplomats, trying to bridge the differences between two sides.

America once again seems eager to narrow these differences.. Iran is playing hard to get, the Europeans are itching to resume business in Iran, while Moscow and Beijing add Tehran to their revamped anti-US axis.

True, Mr. Blinken on Friday called Israel’s foreign minister, Gabi Ashkenazi. According to the State Department, though, it was ostensibly about a return to evenhandedness between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. When it comes to Iran, the administration would rather consult with those who believe they’re unthreatened by the prospect of emboldened Iran.

Publicly, the Biden team acknowledges that a return to the JCPOA must reflect the fact that 2021 is not 2015 and that a new deal must be “longer and stronger.”

Tehran’s regional aggression via militant proxies has escalated exponentially since the JCPOA was signed. The missile program was enhanced. Human rights violations in the Islamic Republic became unbearable. Public unrest widened. Hostages, including Americans, are being held as bargaining chips.

The JCPOA’s nuclear components may no longer suffice either. Inspections have proven weak, as Iranians block international visits to several sites and refuse entry to military bases. Accounting of past nuclear activity is lacking, especially after Israel disclosed a trove of documents it spirited from a secret archive in downtown Tehran.

Most seriously, the “sunset clauses” are fast approaching. Late last year, the United Nations Security Council overrode American objections and allowed one clause, a ban on Iran’s selling and buying non-nuclear arms, to lapse. By the end of the decade all restrictions are due to be removed, opening the way for Iran to legally possess as many nukes as its militants’ hearts desire.

So yes, administration officials say they’d like to address these problems, but only after the JCPOA is renewed. In other words, what they failed to achieve six years ago will be renegotiated now — but only after throwing away all our leverage.

Meanwhile, next week at Vienna, even whispering what many Iranians want most of all — an overthrow of their oppressive regime — will be, as the Austrians say, verboten.

________

Twitter: @bennyavni