As yet another supposed “deadline” approaches for a final agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the sheer determination of Barack Obama to get any deal he can before he leaves office — literally any deal — becomes more and more the driving force behind our negotiating position.

Having once said “We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon; it would be a game-changer in the region” and claiming “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table,” Obama is now willing to ignore Iranian nuclear violations, ignore Iran’s willful violation of UN Security Council resolutions, ignore Iran’s role in the Syrian war, ignore Iran’s continued arming and equipping of Hezbollah, ignore Iran’s de facto control of Iraq, ignore the mortal threat a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel, and ignore the history of the current Iranian regime, all in the hope of getting something on paper with which to declare his foreign policy legacy.

The most recent interim agreement openly ceded to Iran everything it needs to produce nuclear weapons if it will only refrain from open mischief for ten years. Ten years is a blink of an eye to a nation. Consider that just slightly more than ten years ago a previously little-known Illinois senator was delivering the keynote address at the Democrat National Convention in Boston, or that nearly 25 years have passed since the first Gulf War.

With a sense of its own history stretching back nearly 6,000 years, Iran understands how quickly ten years will pass, at which time it can begin industrial-scale enrichment without penalty. Ten years will also produce advances in Iran’s ballistic missile program, another subject once linked to the nuclear program but now tossed aside by the White House.

Why is Obama so determined to give this extraordinary gift to Iran? Because, as Reuel Marc Gerecht, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, points out in a scathing critique of the president’s misunderstanding of Iran, Obama is afraid that if the United States tries to hold a harder line the Iranians will simply walk away from the talks. And then the president will be faced with another red line he knows he cannot bring himself to enforce.

Obama’s irresolution has been the one common thread running through all of his administration’s dealings with Iran. Time and again, he has demonstrated lack of leadership and lack of resolve in the face of unpleasant facts. Having been elected president on a platform of platitudes, perhaps he really believes that wishing can make it so. But the entire body of human history demonstrates the opposite.

This lack of leadership and resolve has led key friends and allies around the world to re-assess their relationships with the United States. How can Saudi Arabia, or South Korea, or Estonia take seriously America’s pledge to defend them while Obama is giving away the farm to Iran? This lack of faith in American resolve has reportedly led to the virtually unthinkable happening: Israeli and Saudi officials recently acknowledged the two nations are consulting on how to deal with the rising threat of Iran without the U.S.

We remain guardedly optimistic that no final deal will be reached by June 30, which will at least prevent sanctions being lifted for another nine months or so. But as months of negotiation stretch into years, and as Iran inches ever closer to nuclear capability, the only thing that can possibly bring about an acceptable outcome to the nuclear issue is U.S. leadership and resolve — something sorely lacking in our current president and his team of fellow travelers.