Are these two paragraphs distinguishing energy v. weapons?
"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."
"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 distinctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region."
And what are the actual and practical implications?
Complete thread:
- The terms of the US's surrender in the Iran war are stark. -
domer.mq,
2026-06-18, 09:03
- Are these two paragraphs distinguishing energy v. weapons? - Grantland, 2026-06-19, 06:16
- Sounds like they went easy on us - fightinamish, 2026-06-18, 19:51
- I heard someone describe it as late-empire rome - MattG, 2026-06-18, 12:33
- What a joke! - oviedoirish, 2026-06-18, 12:32
- What does the $300B buy us? -
San Pedro,
2026-06-18, 09:41
- If someone has their knee on your neck - atxND, 2026-06-18, 19:08
- Peace? -
nedhead,
2026-06-18, 18:37
- The better alternative... -
domer.mq,
2026-06-18, 19:50
- Sure, but we can't go back in time.
-
nedhead,
2026-06-18, 19:52
- Was Hiroshima a tolerable outcome for Japan -
KGB,
2026-06-19, 05:34
- I don't understand this line of argument. - nedhead, 2026-06-19, 06:07
- Was Hiroshima a tolerable outcome for Japan -
KGB,
2026-06-19, 05:34
- Sure, but we can't go back in time.
- The better alternative... -
domer.mq,
2026-06-18, 19:50
- It buys us Trump’s attempt at development deals - Joe I, 2026-06-18, 12:21
- Its helps secure Iran’s new young extremist leader. -
Mark,
2026-06-18, 10:00
- This doesn’t address my question.
-
San Pedro,
2026-06-18, 12:19
- This doesn’t address my question.
- It buys us not having our Oil reserves go to 0 next month.
-
domer.mq,
2026-06-18, 09:53
- Our oil reserves are nearly empty? -
San Pedro,
2026-06-18, 12:18
- as I have learned recently, it's a complex question -
domer.mq,
2026-06-18, 12:29
- I guess taking over Venezuela - Jeremy (WeIsND), 2026-06-18, 12:54
- as I have learned recently, it's a complex question -
domer.mq,
2026-06-18, 12:29
- Our oil reserves are nearly empty? -
San Pedro,
2026-06-18, 12:18