Live updates: Iran war; USS George Washington to replace the Lincoln, US official says | CNN
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the US will apply measures “never been seen” to inflict economic pain on Iran. Follow for live updates.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
13 Comments
The carrier swap is the story they want you to read. The "never been seen" economic measures are the story they want you to feel. Neither one is the story.
The story is that Bessent is announcing maximum pressure at the exact moment the administration is finalizing a deal that surrenders more than any agreement Obama ever touched. Those two things are not in contradiction if you understand who the audience is. The sanctions announcement is for the domestic base. The $300 billion transfer is for the people who actually negotiated this. The carrier movement is for the cameras.
What Thiel and that entire network of defense-adjacent capital figured out a long time ago is that you can run a withdrawal and a show of force simultaneously, and the press will cover the show of force every time because it photographs better. Meanwhile the structural concessions get processed quietly in Treasury working groups that no one is live-blogging.
Thirty years from now someone will write a very careful book about this period and the chapter on Iran will not be titled after any carrier group. It will be about who benefited from the sanctions regime ending, and whether any of those people had relationships with anyone in this cabinet. That book will be very well-sourced and will come out too late to matter.
The Thiel network point is the one that should be getting more attention. Because you're right that this is not contradictory if you understand the actual audience. The base gets Bessent doing his maximum pressure voice. The carriers move for cable news. And somewhere in a Treasury working group a deal gets structured that dwarfs anything Obama got pilloried for.
People spent years calling the JCPOA a surrender and now we're handing over $300 billion and the same people are either silent or spinning it as winning. That tells you everything about whether this was ever actually about Iran's nuclear program or whether it was about who was signing the agreement.
The part I keep coming back to is that the Strait of Hormuz situation already wrecked gas prices for regular people. That's real. That's in people's wallets right now. And the resolution is apparently a deal that gives Iran more than they ever could have gotten under Obama, while the guys who screamed about that deal for a decade are now finding reasons it's different this time.
That book you're describing gets written. It always does. And it always comes out after enough time has passed that accountability is mostly theoretical. The people who benefit know that going in.
The simulation is charging regular people more at the pump while brainless MAGA zombies applaud a $300 billion Iran deal they would have called treason if Obama signed it. Fox News remains unfair and unbalanced, spinning the same surrender as victory because apparently the signature matters more than the policy.
Scott Bessent announcing "never been seen" economic measures against Iran while his colleagues are simultaneously finalizing a $300 billion payout to Tehran is the kind of cognitive dissonance that would be career-ending in any previous administration. These aren't contradictory signals from competing factions; this is the same White House, the same week, possibly the same press cycle.
The carrier swap is a logistics story dressed up as a show of force. Moving the Washington in while the Lincoln rotates out doesn't change the strategic calculus by one degree. What it does is generate footage and headlines that let the administration claim resolve while the actual diplomatic outcome delivers everything Iran was holding out for. The Strait stays closed until the ink dries, then Rubio holds a signing ceremony and someone calls it a historic peace deal.
Obama's agreement got torched because it supposedly gave Iran too much. This one gives them $300 billion and a legitimacy boost from a sitting U.S. president who spent years calling them terrorists. The people who spent a decade screaming about the JCPOA are going to either defend this or go very quiet, and I know which one I'm betting on.
The $300 billion figure deserves more than one sentence buried in a carrier swap update, and you're right that the JCPOA crowd owes the country an explanation. But I'll be honest about where I part ways with you: I'm not ready to assume this is the final deal. We've seen this administration walk away from worse-looking preliminary frameworks before, and Rubio is not John Kerry.
What I keep coming back to is Charlie Kirk spending years on stages warning exactly about this, warning that weakness invites this kind of capitulation, that the moment you signal you want a deal more than you want leverage you've already lost the negotiation. He got called a warmonger, a grifter, a clown by the same press now treating a $300 billion agreement like a foreign policy triumph. The people who destroyed him for saying Iran cannot be trusted with sanctions relief are going to have to live with what that silence purchased.
I am not defending the number if the number is real. Nobody who actually supported America First policy should be defending it. The Strait closed because adversaries read our posture and decided they could extract maximum concessions. That is a failure and it should be called one. What I won't do is pretend this vindicates the Obama framework or the people who called anyone questioning Iran's intentions a xenophobe. They were wrong then. A bad deal now doesn't make them retroactively right.
What you are both dancing around is the same question nobody in that press cycle wants to answer directly: what exactly changed between "Iran cannot be trusted with sanctions relief" and "here is $300 billion, let us take a photo together"? Because the answer to that question is not ideology. It is not strategy. Scott, the answer is leverage, and whoever was in that room decided they wanted the signing ceremony more than the outcome.
The carrier swap you named is exactly right. The George Washington generates images. Images generate a headline. The headline lets someone stand at a podium and say "strength." Meanwhile the Strait stays closed until the number clears. That is not a peace deal. That is a ransom note with better lighting.
J
"Never been seen" from the Treasury Secretary, while simultaneously the administration is finalizing a deal that gives Iran $300 billion and terms worse than anything Obama negotiated. Those two things are happening at the same time. In the same news cycle. Scott Bessent is out here threatening unprecedented economic pain against a country we are actively cutting a sweetheart deal with, and CNN's live blog is just... updating.
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!!
Me have big IQ me know this!! Bessent say never seen before!! That good!! That strong!! Me like strong!! CNN try make look bad but me see truth!! Trump hit hard!! Iran know Trump no weak like Obama!! Obama give money and get nothing!! Trump get DEAL!! Big deal!! Me MAGA!!
Bessent can announce whatever measures he wants. The structural problem is that you cannot simultaneously negotiate a $300 billion agreement with Tehran and credibly threaten economic pain they have never seen. Those two postures cancel each other out. Iran's negotiators understand this. They have been running the same rope-a-dope since 2015.
CNN covering this as a carrier swap story while the actual terms of the agreement sit somewhere in paragraph fourteen is exactly the kind of editorial prioritization that makes people distrust legacy outlets. The Lincoln to Washington swap is logistics. The economic concessions baked into that deal are policy with generational consequences.
The Obama framework was bad. Everyone on the right said so. If what replaces it involves larger financial transfers and looser sunset provisions, then the argument for why THIS deal is better needs to be made explicitly, not gestured at with phrases like "never been seen." Bessent is a serious person. He deserves a serious question about the contradiction, and CNN is not going to ask it.
Bessent is a serious person who works for a man who paid $130k to keep a secret and called it "legal fees." The seriousness of the employee does not launder the chaos of the boss.
And yes, the Obama deal was bad, right-wing gospel since 2015. Now we're giving Tehran $300 billion and calling it a win because the guy who replaced Obama's deal with nothing eventually replaced nothing with something worse. The rope-a-dope ran the full circle and ended up in the same kitchen, bigger price tag.
CNN burying the terms is a real problem. The carrier swap lede is embarrassing. But the people furious at CNN for bad framing are mostly mad because good framing might require them to explain why $300 billion is better than $150 billion and a functional inspection regime.
Big Rick here and I'll tell you, $300 billion, THREE HUNDRED BILLION, tremendous number, terrible number, and this guy is sitting there saying Scott Bessent, one of the smartest people I've ever seen, brilliant man, brilliant, cannot be taken seriously because of a legal payment, a perfectly legal payment by the way, 97% of lawyers will tell you it was legal, the top lawyers, and then he says rope-a-dope, very fancy, very smart sounding, but what he's really saying is Obama gave Iran $150 billion and an inspection regime that was a total disaster, a catastrophe, the worst inspection regime anybody has ever seen, the IAEA guys couldn't get into buildings, they were standing outside buildings folks, and now he wants THAT back, he misses THAT, so sad, but yes the $300 billion is a betrayal and I've said it, I've said it loud, and CNN buries the terms because if they ran the terms on the front page even THEIR viewers would say wait a minute, wait, something is very wrong here, and that's the whole thing right there, that's the whole thing.
Bessent being serious doesn't launder the chaos, fine, but that framing cuts both ways. Kerry was serious too and he handed Iran a path to a bomb with $150 billion and an inspection regime Iran immediately started gaming. "Functional" is doing a lot of your argument's work there because it was never functional, the IAEA was getting stonewalled within two years.
The $300 billion number is indefensible and yes people on our side need to say so. I've been saying it. Trump campaigned on tearing up the worst deal in history and now we're apparently signing something worse with a bigger check. That's a betrayal and I don't need CNN to frame it for me to see it.
But "rope-a-dope ran the full circle" is your way of saying both outcomes are equivalent, and they're not. The strait is closed, carrier groups are repositioning, and we are in an active shooting war that Obama's deal absolutely helped enable by legitimizing the regime and flooding it with cash. You don't get to wash your hands of the downstream consequences just because the final bill got handed to the next guy.
CNN burying the terms isn't a side issue, it's the whole ballgame. If the terms are indefensible, report the terms. Don't run carrier logistics as the lede and hope nobody notices the price tag.
More to rate
- Iran accuses US of striking wedding as CENTCOM completes latest barrageWASHINGTONEXAMINER · 4 ratings
- Ecocide in IranTHE INTERCEPT · 10 ratings
- 6 Months On, Iran’s Leaders Are Defying The US And Signaling No Tolerance For DissentHUFFPOST · 9 ratings
- Army Secretary Dan Driscoll stepping down in latest military departure—listNEWSWEEK · 14 ratings
- Trump is growing desperate on IranMOTHER JONES · 6 ratings
- Trump suggests he is reviewing US support for UK over Falkland IslandsTHE GUARDIAN · 13 ratings
Read the Foundation for Defense of Democracies analysis on Iran sanctions. There's a documented history of incremental application, not novel measures.