What a "deal"....!?

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics/how-to-read-us-iran-agreement-mcgurk-analysis

How to read the US-Iran draft agreement: Big commitments from Washington, not from Tehran

Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Now that CNN has received a full text of the draft agreement between the US and Iran, we can begin to more fairly assess its merits. Of course, before the White House officially releases the text, what CNN received may not be final or could change. But we now know enough to assess the terms, and I’ll try my best to do so.

From the text we have now seen, it’s remarkable how much the United States is offering for little in return. I’ve negotiated difficult agreements with Iran and this document stands out in providing Iran much of what it’s demanded in the past — and rarely gotten.

Trump appears to have determined that a deal — any deal — was a better alternative to the status quo. For its part, Iran effectively held the Strait of Hormuz hostage and demanded that the US meet its price. The tactic appears to have succeeded.

The essence of this memorandum of understanding (MOU) in practice is that Iran gets a lot now, including tens of billions of dollars, in exchange for not shooting at ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
Understanding the text

According to a draft copy obtained by CNN, the full 14 points of the agreement can be read here. To understand how it works, we need to break out what happens immediately upon signing (now) and what is anticipated in the future. Think of the agreement as two phases. Phase 1 gets underway now and phase 2 kicks everything else to be resolved in a “final agreement” to be negotiated over the next 60 days. That 60-day period can be extended by mutual consent.
Now: upfront US concessions

Like many deals with Iran, this text is a bit of a jigsaw puzzle with some articles referencing others — and some provisions focused on the future whereas others apply immediately.

To unlock what must happen now, go to Article 13. It states that immediately upon signing, “Articles 4, 5, 10 and 11” of the MOU must be underway. So those are the articles that apply right now, and must be in effect before phase 2 talks even begin.

Let’s review them:

Article 4 and 5 (Strait of Hormuz): Under these two articles, the United States lifts its naval blockade and Iran removes obstacles (such as mines) to ensure that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz returns to pre-war levels within the next 30 days. If the agreement stopped here, it’s a good one for the US and the global economy as it solves the core problem of the strait with both countries agreeing to allow ships to transfer at pre-war levels.

But the agreement does not stop there. In fact, this is where Iranian obligations end and American obligations begin.

Article 10 (sanctions waiver): Under this article, the United States “immediately after the signing … will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.”

This a significant concession. On its face, it returns Iran to the status it enjoyed under the Obama-era nuclear deal (the JCPOA) with unlimited oil and petrochemical sales at market prices. Some energy experts have already assessed that this article alone would deliver $60-$70 billion a year directly to Iran.

That’s $60-$70 billion for doing nothing other than opening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war.

Article 11 (frozen funds): This article is tricky, a jigsaw-within-the-jigsaw. It says: “The United States undertakes that … frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available.” Inside that ellipse, the text reads “in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement.”

That might be read to caveat the release of funds in exchange for Iran’s performance in the 60-day talks towards a more permanent deal. But recall Article 13: those 60-day talks do not begin without “implementation” of this article on frozen funds. Thus, the frozen funds must be dealt with in some form now and perhaps even before Iran is required to meet its requirements in the strait.

Also significant, this article states that Iran’s central bank can determine the beneficiary of the funds once released. That is entirely different from other deals with Iran — such as a hostage deal in 2023 — that made these funds available solely for non-sanctioned beneficiaries (such as humanitarian goods). While the language could certainly change, I do not recall any deals separate from the JCPOA that simply released Iran’s frozen assets for any beneficiary as designated by Iran.
Longer-term provisions

Has Iran made any new commitments to the United States over the longer term in exchange for these concessions? From the text we have, it does not appear so.

Article 8 (nuclear weapons): According to the text received by CNN, Iran “reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons.”

Trump is touting this article as somehow preventing Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon. But the Obama-era JCPOA text was stronger: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons.” This is not a political point. It’s a fact. The language on nuclear weapons is not new, and it’s actually weaker than what the United States had in the deal that Trump abandoned during his first term.

@Soothfast said
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics/how-to-read-us-iran-agreement-mcgurk-analysis

[quote]How to read the US-Iran draft agreement: Big commitments from Washington, not from Tehran

Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

N ...[text shortened]... copies the entire text of the article to the clipboard. Now paste the text into any word processor.

So, I came across a fairly clear analysis of the "memorandum of understanding" (MoU) that's emerged between the US and Iran on the Le Monde website. The original text of the understanding is critiqued point for point, and there's not really any room for bias or political spin. Anyone who remotely pretends to any degree of intellectual honesty should read it and ask themselves whether the understanding is really a good deal for the US vis-a-vis the status quo before Israel and the US decided to just start bombing things in February.

The fact is the MoU puts the US in no better position than before the war, and on many points represents a significant retreat. I know it's not fashionable in the MAGAsphere to face objective facts honestly, and what-aboutism, falsehoods, hyperbole, outright fabrications, unsubstantiated speculations, and conspiratorial fever dreams are the go-to knee-jerk defense mechanisms, but facts are facts, and the fact is Trump has thrown the entire global economy—not to mention the US economy—into a maelstrom of pain and chaos to no good effect. Money has been wasted, munitions depleted, oil reserves drained, lives lost, and miseries multiplied on all sides, all for nothing.

Here is the link:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/06/19/le-monde-s-point-by-point-breakdown-of-the-fragile-us-iran-framework-agreement_6754675_4.html

I picked a link to a non-US news source, since it will be less entangled in the smoke and heat of US politics. It's noted in the link that France and many other nations, unlike Trump, are not committed to removing all currently existing sanction on Iran. The MoU makes clear, however, that Trump is prepared to make concessions to Iran on a scale unrealized by any other nation on Earth save Russia, China, and a few other dictatorships that are generally adversarial to US interests.

It's also noted in the link that only 60 days are allocated for negotiating the fate of Iran's nuclear program, which everyone who knows anything about the technicalities involved says is impossible to achieve. Trump's threat that failure to come to an agreement within 60 days will be answered with resumed bombing is empty, since that would immediately result in Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz again, causing "pain at the pump" in the US mere weeks away from the general elections. Iran knows this, and the timing couldn't be worse for Trump and the Republicans.

Incompetence, cruelty, and hostility toward objective facts are the cardinal rules of MAGA, so I don't expect things will change much on Trump's side of the equation in these matters. The decimation of the GOP in November will be the end result, without much doubt. Therein lies hope.

The link above is probably behind a paywall for nonsubscribers to Le Monde, so I will include the text in my next post here.

@Soothfast

this is nuclear level intellectual
i approve, but,
however will you reach those who are homeschooled in the art of gun cleaning and chicken feeding?

From the link I posted above...

After more than 100 days of war, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending their conflict. The document will be followed by negotiations to address issues it does not resolve. Le Monde publishes the full text, along with context and analysis.

After more than 100 days of war, interrupted by a precarious ceasefire, the United States and Iran announced on Sunday, June 14, the conclusion of a memorandum of understanding intended to bring the conflict to an end. Signed three days later, on June 17, by Donald Trump at the Château de Versailles, and by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Tehran, the official document, of which Le Monde obtained a copy, consists of 14 points that highlight Iran's triumph. The Islamic Republic, though militarily weakened, has conceded nothing.

Washington appears to have no other option but to acknowledge its strategic missteps and work to bring this war, which achieved none of the objectives successively outlined by the White House, to a close. This framework agreement, rejected by Israel, will open a 60-day period of negotiations, notably to address Iran's nuclear issues. However, the resumption of Israeli strikes in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah, Iran's ally, disrupted the launch of this second, so-called "technical" phase. It was initially scheduled to begin in Geneva on Friday in the presence of US Vice President JD Vance, but it has been postponed.

Point 1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.

Analysis. Iran agreed to sign the memorandum of understanding with the United States only after securing a clause mandating a permanent ceasefire in Lebanon, where its ally, the Shiite Hezbollah movement, launched a war against Israel on March 2. Tehran also obtained security guarantees for Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty, conditions that require Israel to withdraw from the 600 square kilometers it occupies in southern Lebanon, part of a disputed "security zone."

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that any violation of these two clauses would constitute a breach of the agreement signed with Washington. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza "for as long as necessary." Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, while welcoming Lebanon's inclusion in the deal between Tehran and Washington, stressed that the negotiations with Israel, set to resume in Washington on June 22, are "independent."


Point 2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. ​

Since Iran lacks the capability to strike US soil, this provision primarily serves as a constraint on the United States. It is one of Tehran's non-negotiable demands before agreeing to sign any deal. The US and Israel went to war on February 28 with the aim of toppling the Iranian regime. These attacks killed former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and eliminated dozens of senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Analysis. Through this clause, Iran's new leaders sought to formally secure Washington's renunciation of any attempt to bring about regime change by force. "I don't believe in regime change. And I’ve watched regime changes for years. They never work," Donald Trump said on June 16, on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Evian, in the French Alps. Yet, on the first day of the Israeli-American offensive, the US president had urged the Iranian people to "take over."

This message is also addressed to the Iranian population, offering a promise of stability and a way to bury revolutionary aspirations following the January massacre of thousands of protesters, whom Trump had, for a time, promised his support.


Point 3. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.

Analysis. American and Iranian representatives were scheduled to meet in Switzerland on Friday, June 19, to launch talks that few observers expected to succeed so quickly. However, this initial meeting has already been postponed due to intensified fighting and bombings in Lebanon. The memorandum of understanding promises to lift a significant portion of American pressure, particularly on Iran's oil sales, allowing Tehran to delay technical talks over its nuclear program, a subject where White House negotiators have demonstrated a lack of expertise.


Point 4. Immediately upon the signing of this MoU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final Deal.

Analysis. This clause is the sole reason why the deal was met with relief from Europe to Asia and the Gulf monarchies. It promises a partial lifting of obstacles to maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than 20% of the world's oil and gas exports pass, leading to lower prices at the pump and for consumers. However, since April, the United States and Iran have regularly engaged in military confrontations to strengthen their bargaining positions, even as negotiations continued. These tactics may persist during upcoming nuclear talks, and Washington may need to extend its costly military deployment, which still provides leverage over Iran.


Point 5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles in de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and Maritime Services Administrator Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

Analysis. This is a clear retreat by Washington, which was expected to secure the swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international maritime traffic. In exchange, Iran pledged not to impose any transit fees on vessels for 60 days. However, Tehran included in the agreement its intention to exercise a new form of control over the strait, a point it refused to negotiate with Washington. The US yielded to this pressure by leaving future negotiations over the status of Hormuz to Oman, which shares territorial waters in the strait with Tehran. The text even encourages Washington's other Gulf Arab allies – primarily the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – to join these talks, something they have so far refused to do. Oman also advocated introducing "service fees" in the strait but worked to ensure that the new mechanism would comply with international law and be approved by the International Maritime Organization – a tall order.


I need to make another post because of the character limit of 10,000...

@rookie54 said
@Soothfast

this is nuclear level intellectual
i approve, but,
however will you reach those who are homeschooled in the art of gun cleaning and chicken feeding?

Point 6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final Deal within 60 days. All required liceses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.

Analysis. The comparison is clear with the illusion of turning the Gaza Strip into a "Riviera," a project once championed by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law. The United States is already asking its Gulf Arab allies, who have borne the brunt of the collateral damage from a war imposed on them, to open their checkbooks and contribute to this fund, allowing the American president to wash his hands of the matter. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both invited to the G7 summit in Evian on June 16, are at the center of this effort. Before the war, both countries pursued policies aimed at easing tensions with Iran, maintaining mutual economic interests. Qatar, for instance, previously offered incentives for calm in exchange for investment projects in the vast gas field it shares with Iran. However, the wounds of the war remain too fresh for Gulf states to make any financial commitments in these talks. As for possible American investments, the array of sanctions against Iran currently in force in Washington makes it unlikely that any fund could be implemented legally.


Point 7. The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final Deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and express their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

Analysis. The United States is overstepping its authority by assuming it can impose the lifting of sanctions on other UN representatives. While France has expressed support for the agreement, Paris has remained cautious about sanction removal. "If [the agreement] is not sufficient, then the sanctions will not be lifted," warned Emmanuel Macron in a television interview on June 15, recalling two days later "the important role of the few countries that are guarantors of the JCPOA [the nuclear agreement reached under Barack Obama] and of international sanctions."

The White House, meanwhile, presents the lifting of primary and secondary US sanctions as little more than a formality: a complex set of measures built up over decades, on which Congress has a say. Congress has been reluctant to ease the pressure on Iran. In 2014 and 2015, even after a regime change in Damascus that ousted the Assad regime, it took months for Congress to initiate the lifting of sanctions against Syria.


Point 8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two Parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final Deal. The final Deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

Analysis. This is the only Iranian commitment included in the agreement, along with the mutual lifting of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has presented it as his victory, claiming proof that his deal is better than the one reached by his predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2015. In reality, this commitment was already set out clearly in 2015, just like Tehran's earlier pledge not to acquire a weapon abroad. Washington has already begun backtracking on the issue of Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, suggesting as a minimal solution that the uranium be diluted within Iranian territory under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The White House had initially demanded that this material be transferred out of the country, preferably to the United States. Much to the dismay of non-proliferation experts, particularly in France, Washington portrayed this issue as largely resolved by the draft agreement. As early as June 17, Trump warned that any Iranian misstep would result in renewed military offensives. "If [Iran's commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons] is not permanently, we will bomb them," Trump concluded.


Point 9. Pending the final Deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.

Analysis. According to the US president, the status quo can be maintained solely through the United States satellite surveillance. Trump stated, "We have Space Force cameras on every single door (...) If somebody walks in and he's got a badge with his name on it, like Mohamed something (...), they can tell the name, they can give you the serial number."


Point 10. The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MoU and until the termination of sanctions, U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

Analysis. This is the main concession made by Washington, who is giving up a crucial bargaining chip in the second phase of its negotiations. Even before any substantial discussion about its nuclear program, Iran could be granted the ability to freely trade its oil, thus ensuring the survival of the regime.


Point 11. The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.

Analysis. Until now, Trump had always pushed back against any potential unfreezing of Iranian assets. The US president, who repeatedly mocked the 2015 agreement and accused it of handing Iran $1.7 billion – an amount related to a trade dispute – has nevertheless resigned himself to promising to release part of the sum, estimated at between $100 billion and $150 billion. Most of these funds correspond to oil revenues accumulated over the years, notably in China, India, South Korea and Japan.

"For these frozen funds, approval from Congress would be necessary. A waiver only allows for a temporary unfreezing, generally for 180 days. That said, I do not think Congress will take a particularly aggressive stance on this issue," explained Nicole Grajewski, assistant professor at the Center for International Studies (CERI) at Sciences Po.


Point 12. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MoU and the future compliance of the final Deal.


There is no analysis provided for Point 12. One more post will be necessary for the final two points...

Point 13. After signing this MoU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this MoU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final Deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.

Analysis. Negotiations over the future of Iran's nuclear program are expected to last 60 days. Experts consider this timeframe unrealistic, given the highly technical nature of the subject and the need for meticulous attention to detail. "If it doesn't get done in 60 days, that's all right. We go back to bombing," Trump said on June 17. The negotiations appear to sideline the issue of Iran's regional threat, in particular its support for Hezbollah or the Houthis in Yemen. The issue of ballistic missiles, which are essential to Israel, Gulf countries and Europe, have also disappeared from the discussions. "We'll be working on a parallel effort with the Gulf nations to address non-nuclear issues, such as the conventional ballistic missiles. They [Iran] have to have some because other people have some," Trump explained on June 17.


Point 14. The final Deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

Analysis. This point illustrates the deep mistrust between Iran and the United States, which bombed the country twice while diplomatic negotiations were underway. However, Trump appears largely unconcerned with securing any approval from the United Nations. The "Epic Fury" offensive on February 28 took place entirely outside any UN framework.

@rookie54 said
@Soothfast

this is nuclear level intellectual
i approve, but,
however will you reach those who are homeschooled in the art of gun cleaning and chicken feeding?

@Soothfast said

To see the whole link above without being a subscriber to CNN (which I most certainly am not) there's a trick: click into the link, do NOT scroll but do this instead: press Command (⌘) + A on your keyboard (for a MacBook), or press Ctrl + A (Windows). This copies the entire text of the article to the clipboard. Now paste the text into any word processor.

@Soothfast said
Fu​ck corporate media.

@rookie54 said
thank you for this internet hack
i have been utilizing several vpn to bypass the paywalls
this looks a tad more simple

In 2016 the Obama administration authorized a $1.7 billion payment to Iran to settle an arbitration dispute surrounding a failed military equipment purchase in the 1970s. MAGA harps on it repeatedly like a broken record, as if it were the crime of the century.

And now? And now!?

And now...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/senate-republicans-somber-pessimistic-mood-100000199.html

Senate Republicans in somber, pessimistic mood over Trump deal with Iran

President Trump's deal to lift sanctions on Iran and give it access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund has cast a glum mood over the Senate Republican Conference, with GOP senators saying that many of their colleagues are in "dismay" and "somber" over the cost of the agreement.

Trump's most vocal MAGA allies on Capitol Hill are defending the agreement as a potential breakthrough that could finally end Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

But many more GOP senators are skeptical about reaching any real agreement with Iran, arguing that the United States doesn't seem to have any real leverage in the talks.

@Soothfast

Thanks for your diligence in this matter. It is clear that the Trump administration went into this fiasco for all the wrong reasons, without a clue how to conclude it, and that there is no shred of diplomatic competence anywhere in Trump's team of advisors. Trump will blame this on Vance, but the responsibility is ultimately Trump's since he chose Vance to lead the negotiations. Vance is a greenhorn; he had one year of experience in the Senate, and not one of the bills he introduced passed, before he was tipped for the VP job. He has no experience of foreign affairs much less of diplomacy.

It took John Kerry's team 18 months to conclude the previous treaty with Iran. Trump tore it up with the ludicrous excuse that it did not encompass a comprehensive restriction on Iran's state support of exported terrorism. That had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear programme; a separate treaty could have been negotiated regarding Iran's support of exported terrorism, leaving the workable nuclear treaty intact. But no, Trump simply wanted to erase Obama's legacy, such a petty man is he.

Iran comes out of this very much stronger, both internally and on the world stage. Iran learned that, like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, the Q-bomb does not actually have to work to get what it wants; as in chess, the threat is stronger than the execution.

As some Republicans are already saying publicly, this could be the worst deal any US president ever made. This is one of the reasons businessmen should not be heads of state; businessmen simply do not understand statesmanship. For the same reason that one wouldn't want a businessman as captain of an aircraft carrier--it's a vocation which must be learned and practised for long years before one is ready to take on such responsibility.

I would be very much in favor of a constitutional amendment regarding candidacy for the offices of president and vice president. There is a reason why there is a minimum age--to ensure a level of intellectual and moral maturity. I would add a clause that there should also be a minimal level of experience in government and lawmaking. More than one year in the Senate, as per Vance.

@Soothfast said
Point 6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final Deal within 60 days. All required liceses, waivers a ...[text shortened]... re is no analysis provided for Point 12. One more post will be necessary for the final two points...