Our State Department Becomes Perplexed

I've long felt the broad outline of a nuclear deal with Iran is obvious: Iran will pretend that they don't have nuclear weapons programs; and we will pretend to believe them. We are working hard on our part even though Iran is falling short on their end of the deal.

Fascinating (tip to Instapundit):

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said she was “perplexed” by a New York Times story Tuesday on Iran’s 20 percent increase in nuclear fuel over the past 18 months.

Once again, I find myself nuance-deficient as Ms. Harf deigns to explain smart diplomacy:

Under the JPOA (Joint Plan of Action), Iran can fluctuate its numbers in terms of their stockpile. They can go up and down as long as at the end of fixed date they are back down below a number.

I see. Their numbers during the plan don't matter as long as at the very end the numbers are okay. My, that isn't a significant loophole, is it? Just how much can it fluctuate up without rattling our State Department?

And does this diplomatic reasoning apply to nuclear weapons, too?

If, by 2025, Iran is supposed to have zero nuclear weapons under any deal, if Iran builds 5 nuclear missiles in 2024 but uses them all to nuke Israeli cities, will Iran technically be in compliance in 2025 because they have zero nuclear weapons despite that "fluctuation" in 2024?

We're so screwed.