According to a previously agreed timetable, "negotiations" with Iran over its nuclear program are supposed to be concluded by tomorrow. That's unlikely to happen.
The why is because of "breakout time" or the time it would take Iran to go from undertaking a peaceful nuclear program to producing a nuclear weapon. "Breakout time" has apparently been the key measure for a US agreement to be finalized.
Notice that's a US stipulation. These talks are supposed to be a P5+1 -the US, Britain, France, Russia, China plus Germany-negotiation with Iran. But this stipulation reveals these "negotiations" are between the US and Iran with the others in the West just bystanders while Russia and China support Iran.
As of "news" yesterday according to Iranian official Abbas Araqchi, "The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our program and we do not intend sending them abroad"- this was another stipulation pushed by the US whereby Iran would send its nuclear stocks to Russia which would then return it as "specialized fuel rods" making it extremely difficult to convert the material to make a nuclear weapon. However, this morning according to an unnamed US official this "had never been decided in closed door talks, even tentatively" with Iran. 
However, yesterday morning, after getting wind of Araqchi's statement to Iranian media and picked up by "Agence France-Presse", House Speaker John Boehner was seen fulminating on CNN, "We have got a regime that's never quite kept its word about anything. I don't understand why we would sign an agreement with a group of people who, in my opinion, have no intention of keeping their word".
Well after reading the Boehner quote in this morning's paper the irony of it was not lost on this writer; was he completely ignorant of his own US government's duplicity "negotiating" with its own indigenous people where in every instance the US government failed to honor every "negotiated" agreement it made with them.
Sorry, I didn't see Boehner's interview on CNN-just read about it-but it's probably a sure bet the CNN interviewer didn't question the House Speakers deficiency in his own country's history and its pathetic record of not "keeping its word" honoring agreements with its own indigenous people. So I digress.
But this appalling "history" by "official" Washington should not be lost on Iranian's. Why agree to anything with the US because it probably won't be worth the paper it's written on.
Then consider this; any diplomatic "agreement" reached with Iran by the Obama administration must be approved by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. With 47 of these yahoos two weeks ago signing and sending a letter to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Kamenei stating they or a new president are likely to reject any agreement with Iran, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to realize any agreement is dead in the water.
So why should Iran "negotiate" at all with the US considering its horrendous history of initiating a coup, overthrowing the legitimately elected government in 1953 as well as placing illegal economic sanctions on the country?
Well, there is no question these US inspired economic sanctions on Iran are severe and hurt ordinary Iranians. Add with the present oil glut-a collusion between the US and Saudi Arabia to push down the price of oil intended to harm Iran and Russia all done with the clear intent to force Iran to accept a nuclear deal on US terms-the Iranian's realize the lifting of sanctions can only come about by settling the "nuclear" issue.
But it's quite obvious to the Iranian's-considering Araqchi's statement of Iran's intentions not to ship enriched uranium abroad-they won't be bullied into submission with the present "negotiations".
Meanwhile if readers have kept up with Pepe Escobar's columns he's made it clear Iran's destiny is more interconnected with Russia and China, the SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the upcoming BRICS NDB New Development Bank et al, so the current nuclear "negotiations do serve a purpose; Iran isn't likely to be attacked militarily by the US or its surrogate Israel while the talks continue.
So in all likelihood another extension of the talks-they've been extended twice before-will be agreed to.
That's not a given of course, but with tomorrow's deadline fast approaching we'll find out soon enough.
 Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal" by David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon, "The New York Times", March 29, 2015
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).