A new report released on Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency declares that while Iran’s nuclear program has moved forward, the motion is incremental in nature. The report comes as speculation continues to grow about whether the U.S. and Iran will engage in direct talks.

While the number of centrifuges installed at the Fordow nuclear site, buried into the side of a mountain, has increased, the number that are operational has stayed the same. Likewise, the amount of uranium that has been enriched to a 20 percent level has actually decreased since the August 2012 report. This is due to a large amount of material being converted, or slated for conversion, to be used in reactor fuel plates. While not impossible to transform this material back into uranium for further enrichment, it greatly complicates the process.

In terms of the nature of Iran’s program, the full report notes that since August there has no new ability of the IAEA to completely verify Iran’s work due to there being “no agreement on a structured approach to resolving outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and no agreement by Iran to the Agency’s request for access to the Parchin site.”

Iran experts, like Jamal Abdi, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council, say the report offers “no surprises” and that it’s clear that Iran is continuing “to modestly increase its bargaining position but hasn’t made any dramatic escalatory moves like installing advanced machines or enriching above medium grade.” Abdi told ThinkProgress that the “same number of centrifuges are spinning at Fordow, and Iran’s medium enriched uranium quantities are still well below the amount required for a weapon.” Others, like Mark Fitzpatrick, the director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program, come to a similar conclusion. Fitzpatrick tweeted that the report “shows Iran continues to make incremental advances, but almost as if calibrating progress so as not to spark a crisis.” He also tweeted that the report shows that Iran “has 10% more enriched uranium and 10% more centrifuges than 3 months ago. The rial dropped 40%, so this time sanctions are winning.”

To some, like Cliff Kupchan, an Iran analyst at the Eurasia Group, the report indicates that, “Iran has crafted its nuclear posture to gain leverage at likely upcoming talks.” Kupchan said to ThinkProgress that “Iran could quickly increase production of dangerous medium enriched uranium -– but has for now chosen not to.” He added that “in effect, Iran has pointed a loaded diplomatic gun at the West, hoping that it will see the most attractive offer possible from the U.S. and its partners.”

The Obama administration has enforced sanctions against Iran with the goal of inducing a diplomatic solution. Thus far, sanctions have had an impact: Iran has lost $48 billion in oil reserves because of them. What’s more, last month the Congressional Research Service reported that, “many judge that Iran might soon decide it needs a nuclear compromise to produce an easing of sanctions.” Indeed, influential Iranian officials have recently said that diplomacy with the U.S. is not “taboo.” Officials from the U.S. and Israel believe Iran has not yet decided on whether to build a nuclear weapon.

Protesters in Jordan continued calling for an end to King Abdullah II’s regime for the second straight day on Friday, as 2,000 people gathered in downtown Amman to protest price increases and subsidy cuts. On November 15, nearly 4,000 protesters in Amman adopted the unofficial slogan of uprisings across the Arab world for the first time: “The people want the downfall of the regime.”

Protests turned violent earlier this week, as people opposed to price increases and subsidy cuts clashed with police. Wednesday’s demonstrations resulted in the first protest-related death Jordan has experienced since uprisings began around the Arab world in early 2011.

Jordan’s protests have mostly been driven by economic grievances, rather than political. King Abdullah is generally well-liked, and he has made an effort to accommodate reformers’ requests, though critics say he’s moved too slowly. For example, in August, he accepted constitutional reforms placing some limits on his power. Subsidies are another important tool the regime uses to stop serious protests from breaking out, but a budget shortfall of almost $3 billion is forcing the government to make cuts. Corporate tax rates were expected to increase, businesses’ electricity rates went up, the price of high-octane gasoline climbed 25 percent, and subsidies for cooking oil and other fuels have been cut.

Though the government has fairly strong institutions, which some argue may prevent regime collapse, the demographic makeup of Jordan is similar to that of other Arab countries that have faced serious unrest and should be a cause for concern. Namely, it is a young country — almost 70 percent of the population is less than 30 years old — with a youth unemployment rate approaching 28 percent. In addition, over 14 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, and it is home to almost 3 million Palestinian refugees.

Demographics are not the sole factor to determine whether protesters’ goals shift from reform to revolution, of course, but they play an important role. There is no guarantee Jordan is heading down the path countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen have traveled, but the outbreak of violence is worrying.

– Greg Noth

Last night, Fox News’ Sean Hannity continued the network’s Swift Boat attacks against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Since Tuesday, immediately following rumors that Kerry is a potential nominee to replace Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense, the network has re-upped the oft criticized and debunked attacks that were first utilized in 2004 against Kerry, then the Democratic presidential nominee. Last night Hannity actually replayed a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, hosted a member of the group on his show, and even added his own supportive commentary to the ad and the attacks against Kerry.

Hannity interviewed John O’Neill, a conservative activist and Swift Boat Vets for Truth member. During the course of the interview, Hannity not only lauds O’Neill for the work he did in 2004 but even asks if the group will come back. Hannity also slams liberals for their criticism of the ad. Here’s one telling portion of the interview:

HANNITY: If in fact Barack Obama wants to nominate [Kerry] for Secretary of Defense or State, will the Swiftboat Vets for Truth come back?

O’NEILL: We’ll do the very best we can, Sean. I was contacted today, I spoke today with three different people that won the congressional medal of honor, who will do the very best we can. Heck, I mean, we’ve got hundreds of thousands of kids that have been engaged in combat, or in the armed forces, can you imagine them counting on John Kerry to protect their back…I mean, we already have got a problem….with Benghazi…

HANNITY: I know for the left it’s a pejorative, they give your and your fellow veterans, by the way, war heroes people who served their country honorably that, challenged lies that he told about other Vietnam vets, they use it as a pejorative. But this ad that you guys ran was very effective.

Media Matters has the clip:

Even Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who’s now on his own mission to tank Susan Rice’s career, criticized the ad in 2004, saying:

I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

The money trail on the Swift Boat ads leads back to well-known conservative operatives. Indeed, The New York Times found that the group “received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president [Bush] and his family.” What’s more, in 2004, the Washington Post went further and dug up the fact that the “the group has raised $17 million, which includes more than $1 million each from T. Boone Pickens and Bob Perry, two Republican donors from Texas. The group has spent $1.2 million to mail anti-Kerry literature.”

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn’t know.

Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

Watch King’s statements here:

Rice has been hit by Republicans for weeks for indicating that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi stemmed from a spontaneous protest related to an anti-Islamic video. However, as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has pointed out, the talking points used by Rice were the same unclassified points given to both the administration and Congress by the intelligence community.

Contrary to the current GOP narrative, Petraeus’ testimony made clear that various intelligence sources at of the time of his initial briefing to Congress indicated that a protest arising in response to a similar one in Cairo was the impetus for the attack in Libya. While those initial assessments were later disproved, the Wall Street Journal has previously reported that this change in thinking began too late to alter Rice’s talking points.

Today’s comments by King towards the intelligence community’s assessments also mark a sharp departure from his previous accusations that Rice should have known sooner that the intelligence that was presented to her was incorrect. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have both also recently said that Rice should “have known better” than to make the statements she did during her interviews.

According to yesterday’s U.S. Army press release, up to 20 active-duty soldiers committed suicide during the month of October. The army includes confirmed suicides and cases of death in which suicide is suspected in its total. October’s numbers are slightly higher than the numbers for the previous month, during which 15 active-duty members of the army are suspected to have committed suicide.

So far this year, 166 active-duty soldiers may have committed suicide. If all 166 cases are confirmed, then the number has already surpassed last year’s total of 165 confirmed active-duty army suicides. The news indicates that the army’s long-running struggle with suicide is tragically escalating.

Earlier this year, the army attempted to combat the epidemic through the use of social media outlets like Facebook to reach out to army members. They’ve also created an app aimed at army members who have contemplated suicide. The app, according to its creator Dr. Nigel Bush, “has the photos, it might have sound messages from loved ones, it might have videos of family trips and so on.”

More conventional strategies like presentations, which the army has also utilized, have been criticized. One Dartmouth professor and expert on suicide told NPR earlier this year, “They call this kind of training ‘death by PowerPoint’…what they might not be as informed about are some individual strategies that they can take to maybe cope better with the situation at hand.” According to the New York Times, “nearly half of all suicides in the military having been committed with privately owned firearms.” Strategies like encouraging “friends and families of potentially suicidal service members to safely store or voluntarily remove personal firearms from their homes” have also been suggested.

TIME magazine detailed the rise of suicides in the army in August:

“Suicides have spiked since 2005, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the conflict in Afghanistan begins to wind down. The drip-drip-drip of statistics tells the story: mental-health problems were the top reason troops were hospitalized last year, according to a May Pentagon report. Nearly 22,000 troops were hospitalized with mental disorders last year, 54% more than in 2007.”

Earlier this year, a high-ranking army official wrote, “Suicide is the toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the Army.” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has described suicide in the army as “one of the most frustrating problems.”