Each day we get closer to the June 30 deadline for the president and his administration to negotiate a nuclear treaty with Iran. What we have learned so far doesn’t suggest that we should enter into an agreement nor should we trust what the leaders of Iran say they will do. Let’s look at a few issues.

Iran’s nuclear stockpile is significant. They were supposed to send thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium to Russia for export that would then be returned as rods to use in peaceful energy production. A recent article in the New York Times reported that “Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations.”

We are now learning about all sorts of concessions that have been made at the bargaining table. Before the talks began, the administration assured everyone that Iran would be forced to stop all uranium enrichment. It continues to do so, and would continue to do so under any agreement or treaty.

The centrifuges where this is taking place are increasing in number. And the latest word in the negotiations is that over 6,000 centrifuges would be allowed to keep spinning even under an agreement or treaty. The same could be said about various nuclear sites in Iran that would most likely be allowed to continue to function.

One other concern is the missiles that Iran has been developing. If you look at some of the maps that have been produced to show the range of Iranian missiles, you can see that Iran not only threatens Israel but many countries in Europe and the Middle East. Negotiators even dropped demands that Iran restrict the development of intercontinental missiles.

Here’s an important question: Who are we are dealing with in these negotiations? The Ayatollah Khamenei frequently denounces America as the Great Satan. He and the mullahs have made it clear they don’t plan to join the international community or play by its rules.

This leads to a final question: Why are we trying to sign an agreement or treaty with a militant Iran?