Partners in peace?

EARNEST: “Let’s go straight to your questions. Julie, do you want to start?”

Pace: “Thanks, Josh. I wanted to start with Iran compromise on the Hill. Has the White House seen the language and would the president still veto this compromise [indecipherable]?”

EARNEST: “Well, Julie, there is the mark up that is scheduled for later today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So in the context of this briefing, I will not be in a position to be ultimately definitive about whether or not we will be able to support the product that emerges.

But there is some greater clarity I can offer you in terms of our position. The first is, we’ve had what I think I can describe as four specific concerns with the way the Corker legislation was introduced. The one that I’ve talked the most frequently about in public is the requirement for the administration to certify that Iran has not backed terrorism against Americans. And this idea that we could essentially get Iran to renounce terrorism is unrealistic.