The Iran deal still has descriptions where the public needs text: Iran International reported the earlier 14-point memorandum account, sanctions-relief and Hormuz terms, plus Iranian officials' caution that the deal was both "very far and very close," while BBC later reported U.S.-Iran strike exchanges, disputed edits to the deal terms, and Iran's claim that Lebanon remained part of the ceasefire frame. [1] [2]

The paper's June 2 article on Ghalibaf and the returned draft said rights, assets and approval conditions had to be judged against the document itself, and Wednesday adds Kuwait, Rubio and Lebanon without adding the missing document.

BBC's Kuwait story says Rubio told Congress sanctions relief had not been offered merely to reopen Hormuz and would be condition-based on the nuclear file, while AP says Trump now describes Lebanon fighting as a complication for Iran talks. [3] [4]

Those are reportable statements, not the returned draft, and until the text appears the paper can print who described which term but cannot treat the descriptions as the deal.

That distinction matters because the public draft would say whether Lebanon, Hormuz, uranium, assets and sanctions sit in one instrument or in separate political understandings; without it, each official voice remains a voice, not the settlement.

-- YOSEF STERN, Jerusalem