For all the talk of a positive atmosphere, U.S. officials have struggled to demonstrate any progress so far. They cautiously welcomed last month's opening meeting in Istanbul but pushed off the harder questions until after this week's follow-up talks. Official comments have continued to stress the importance of the process over single rounds of discussions, suggesting there may no breakthrough following the Baghdad meeting.
But patience isn't inexhaustible. Many in the United States have accepted the Jewish state's argument that Iran's enrichment activity may be too far along and buried too deep underground after this summer for Israel to take military action. And a solid majority of Americans support the option of military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.
Lengthy negotiations without a clear outcome would enrage Israel because Iran would presumably continue expanding its nuclear program in the meantime. For Obama, however, the talks are a calculated political risk.
On the one hand, they buy his administration some time on a tough decision over possible military action at a time of fevered partisan debate linked to November's presidential election. But if the process collapses before then, it would undermine Obama's claims of sturdy leadership on national security issues, from winding down America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to killing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
The U.S.-Israeli disconnect has spilled over repeatedly into America's presidential race, with GOP candidates jockeying throughout the primary season to position themselves as the best defenders of Israel's security. Since emerging as the party's clear nominee, Romney has continued to accuse Obama of sacrificing Israel's interests, arguing several times that his re-election would guarantee Iran's production of a bomb.
But a military response is not without pitfalls, which could explain why Romney has shied away from explicitly threatening American strikes anytime soon.
An attack may set back Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability but would be unlikely to deliver a death blow to the program. And Iran can retaliate in several ways against U.S. interests, from disrupting Mideast oil deliveries to supporting proxy terrorists against allies such as Israel or unstable states like Lebanon.
Avoiding these constraints, Republicans have focused their criticism of Obama for holding talks with Iran at all.
"The administration's foolish embrace of yet another round of negotiations will only embolden the regime," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "The administration has made concession after concession in its negotiations with Iran only to come (home) empty-handed. The Iranian approach seems to be, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"
Ros-Lehtinen referred to diplomatic rumblings suggesting the Obama administration could allow Iran to enrich low-grade uranium if it halted activity at levels closer to weapons-grade material. The United States has long demanded an end to all Iranian enrichment, in line with U.N. Security Council resolutions, along with unfettered access for inspectors and the transfer of already enriched stockpiles out of the country.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials have denied that the U.S. is changing its position on enrichment.
Thus, if Iran maintains a hard line on enriching uranium, even at lower levels for nuclear fuel production, it would put the Obama administration in a difficult spot between joining its international partners who would prefer to meet the Iranians halfway and appearing weak in an election season.
Associated Press writer George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.