The Iran draft is still being described, not read. CBS reports on Trump edits, Hormuz, enriched uranium, and Iranian delay language [1]. BBC adds Kuwait strike context and Rubio testimony [2]. Neither gives the public the returned text.

The paper's June 2 account of Ghalibaf making the draft a rights-and-assets test said the document had to answer concrete conditions. Its June 1 lead on Trump sending back Iran text as strikes widened the record put text edits and kinetic facts in one file. Its June 2 Hormuz story said shipping language needs a public protocol. Those positions still hold.

The contrast with the Lebanon file is now damaging. When a compliance text exists, readers can ask what it says about territory, armed groups, monitors, dates, and enforcement. In the Iran channel, readers still receive descriptions from officials, live files, and unnamed characterizations [1][2]. That is not nothing. It is not the document.

X fills the gap with theories: betrayal, surrender, fake peace, secret payment, hidden uranium language. Mainstream coverage fills it with careful summaries. The paper's job is to keep the absence visible. If the draft names Hormuz, enriched uranium, frozen assets, rights, or enforcement, publish it. If it does not, stop selling the atmosphere as settlement.

Until the text appears, the strongest claim is negative and necessary. The public has accounts of a draft. It does not have the draft.

That distinction is not pedantry. Settlement language controls who can claim compliance, who can allege breach, who can reopen fire, and who can sell relief to domestic audiences. CBS can report descriptions, and BBC can add context, but descriptions cannot answer whether Hormuz, uranium, assets, or rights appear as binding terms [1][2].

The absence is sharper because other files are becoming more concrete. Kuwait has casualties and damage reports. Lebanon has text. Hormuz has flow claims and protocol questions. Against those receipts, the Iran draft remains the weakest object in the strongest story. It is the document everyone invokes and no reader can test.

If officials want trust, the route is simple: publish the text or stop asking the public to treat summaries as settlement.

-- YOSEF STERN, Jerusalem