IF IT'S THE WEEKEND, THERE MUST BE AN IRAN DEAL.

Here. We. Go. Again.  Again.  "Here.  We.  Go.  Again.  Holding meetings to establish a framework to develop a process will not yield a single gram of fissile material, although it is probably a good way to keep the likes of Danny in McMansions in McLean.  Might be time to punch the mullahs in the mouth again, and let them know that once they turn over the fissile material the anaconda's coils can be loosened."  That was toward the end of May.  Toward the end of last week it was "Here comes another weekend of 'an agreement is near.' The hardliners in Iran and among the Militant Normals are not prepared to be patient."

I'm not sure what to make of "Deal to end fighting would lead to Hormuz reopening, Iran says," from the BBC, or "Iran and US say deal closer than ever," from AFP.

"The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer," Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, wrote in a social media post, referring to the Pakistani capital that hosted previous US-Iran talks.

Trump -- who on Friday morning accused the Iranians of negotiating in bad faith and misrepresenting the terms that had been agreed -- posted a screenshot of Araghchi's message on his own feed just hours later.

Araghchi provided some details on the agreement in an interview with state television, saying it calls for the lifting of the US naval blockade of Iran's ports and unspecified changes to the administration of the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime trade route for oil and gas from the Gulf.

He also said the only way to deal with the country's enriched uranium -- which Washington alleges is part of a nuclear weapons programme -- "is to dilute it inside Iran."

- 'Not 100 percent' -

Disputing Trump's "bad faith" accusation, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said an agreement had now been reached with Washington "on most points".

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose country has been a key mediator since the initial talks, confirmed that "a final, agreed-upon text of the peace deal has been reached".

We'll see.  National Review's Andrew McCarthy wants to see that text first as well.

Down here on Planet Earth, the war, once started, has never stopped, and Trump has insisted on objectives — surrender of nuclear material and objectives, reopening of the strait (that was open until Trump decided to attack), and no more support for Hezbollah and other proxies — that the regime will never agree to. Hence, however serious or unserious the president may have been about his regime change and Armageddon rhetoric at the beginning, he now has to defeat the regime. Either that or cut a bad deal, that’s the choice.

I'm not sure what to make of Herr Aragchi and Herr Baqaei taking issue both with more bellicose statements from elsewhere in Iran and with Our President's almost immediate fulminations, when those more bellicose statements predictably came out (but with no proof of life of the alleged supreme leader or Ahmed "Klingon" Vahidi.)

Perhaps Stephen "Vodka Pundit" Green sees it.  "I’m convinced Trump has turned the Mullahs’ rug-merchant negotiating ploy against them."

Perhaps "Captain Ed" Morrissey diagnoses more strategic patience.

Trump has, on several previous occasions, indicated that a deal was imminent, only for the Iranian regime to play its usual Tehran Two-Step. The Iranian regime exhausts its negotiating partners by bargaining in bad faith, relying on mediators to soft-peddle their intransigence and seek out further concessions from the West to close gaps that suddenly appear at the eleventh hour of talks. When the IRGC/mullahs sense that their opponents have really sold themselves into the "achievement" of a deal, that's when they really kick their heels up in the Tehran Two-Step, also known as the Hamas Hokey Pokey.

By this time, Trump should be familiar with this pattern. Perhaps the latest round of bombing informed the IRGC that Trump no longer wants to dance, but that doesn't mean the music has stopped on their negotiating strategy.

As I mentioned briefly yesterday, the big production Trump staged in calling off the strikes at the last moment might be a negotiating tactic, too. He might be sowing confusion among the regime leaders about what really happened in talks, especially between the IRGC hardliners and their quasi-civilian counterparts. Trump could also be offering an off-ramp – again – from armed conflict by pushing them into a framework that, by itself, doesn't commit Iran or the US to much up front. That, along with the naval blockade that clearly has the Iranian regime on the existential ropes, might tempt them to accept American terms with promises of access to economic opportunities.

But don't put those dancing shoes away yet, he cautions.  We've seen this sort of wishful thinking before, even if Herrn Aragchi and Baqaei have posted more conciliatory stuff this time.  Pour yourself a tall one, suggests the Vodka Pundit.  "From my vantage point — soon to include a scotch the size of a floatation device — we'll soon either get a worthless agreement, a seriously broken ceasefire, or more of Trump's waiting game against Tehran's crumbling economy."

According to Conrad Black, "Trump will get what he wants in Iran by negotiation or by force."

Perhaps it's the usual pattern of keeping Iran out of the news while the footie tournament opens and the Flag Day prize fight takes place.