The agreement that Donald Trump presents as his greatest diplomatic victory since the war with Iran is in danger of turning into a political nightmare before it is even made public. Behind the celebrations of the White House, the secrecy surrounding the memorandum of understanding, the revelations about a possible $300 billion fund for Tehran, and the intense reactions even from the President's close allies are turning the much-hyped "end of the war" into a new field of fierce controversy. As the details of the agreement remain hidden, questions are multiplying: is this a historic diplomatic success or a dangerous retreat in the face of the Iranian regime? In an attempt to appease reactions, American government officials are essentially saying: don't pay attention to the deal that will be presented with Iran, we have agreed to other things behind the scenes. This admission proves the confusion, embarrassment, and Trump's fiascο both in the diplomatic and military fields.
A bad deal
The text of President Donald Trump's memorandum of understanding with Iran - when it is finally made public - may not dispel the fears of its critics that it is a bad deal. On the contrary, there is increasing evidence that it will confirm them. The failure to release the terms of the memorandum to end the war - which Donald Trump hailed on Sunday as a historic breakthrough - created a void quickly filled with confusion, concern among Republican "hawks," and growing attacks from Democrats.
Leaks
At the same time, leaks to Middle Eastern media regarding the alleged terms of the agreement, which suggest that the memorandum will not include clear commitments, milestones, and a specific sequence of actions, have made the White House's position increasingly difficult. Intense controversy was sparked by reports of a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, which will be financed by regional powers and will be under American guarantees. This forced officials to insist that no American money would be used and that any economic benefits would depend on Iran's compliance with Washington's demands. However, the issue paved the way for accusations of hypocrisy, given Trump's frequent and exaggerated claims regarding Iranian assets released after the 2015 nuclear deal under the Obama administration.
What Trump and Vance say
Donald Trump defended his agreement at the G7 Summit in France and stated that he would be willing to read it publicly. Vice President JD Vance, who has taken on the task of defending the agreement within the US, attributed the delay to diplomatic processes in the Muslim and Arab world. He also emphasized that any economic benefit for Iran will depend on adherence to the commitment included in the text never to seek the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. JD Vance's statements hinted that a government based on the logic of the "art of the deal" envisions an attractive grand bargain for Iran, which could end its state of international isolation. "We have essentially transformed the Middle East, whether they comply or not. This is just the icing on the cake, provided they do all the right things," JD Vance told Fox News.
Failure
However, the sense of uncertainty that prevailed two full days after Donald Trump's claim that he achieved a huge victory on his 80th birthday created the impression that a government that failed to convincingly explain why it started the war is in danger of failing at how it ends it. Senior officials had initially stated that the agreement was signed digitally on Sunday but would be officially signed at a ceremony in Switzerland on Friday, June 19, in the presence of JD Vance, at which time the full text would be released.
The diplomatic space
There is no doubt, as CNN reports, that diplomacy is a complex art. With Iran, it is notoriously arduous. The negotiations that led to the Obama agreement with Iran lasted at least 18 months. As reported, American negotiators are working for the quick release of the agreement text, while downplaying the importance of the specific wording of the document.
Extremely vague text
American officials described the text of the agreement as extremely vague, with the main purpose being to create a more favorable environment for the highly technical, in-person talks that will follow. They added that the framework of the agreement is also aimed at giving Iran the ability to present it politically to its domestic audience. At the same time, officials mentioned that the text of the memorandum of understanding - which, according to Vice President JD Vance, is one and a half pages long — does not reflect critical commitments that Iran has made to the US through back-channel communication.
Back-channel commitments
As they argued, these commitments gave them greater confidence to proceed with the signing of the agreement. "The world should not attach too much importance to the wording of the memorandum of understanding," said one of the officials, characterizing the agreement as a "political document." "More important than the document itself are the mutual understandings we have developed. That is why it is important to complete it, so that the appropriate environment is created to discuss all these issues. It essentially says that we will lift sanctions, move forward with an agreement on the nuclear program, and unfreeze funds," the same official said. "But sanctions will be lifted depending on the progress made. Funds will be released when we agree on the implementation mechanisms."
The Iranian domestic scene
The official added that the President's negotiating team "crafted wording that allows Iran to say what it needs to for its domestic political scene." However, this approach may spark intense reactions within the US. For months, officials have been working to reach an agreement with Iran, seeking the end of a highly unpopular war without a clear exit strategy, which has sent fuel prices soaring. Already, conservative "hawks" are demanding to see the framework of the agreement, suspecting that President Donald Trump and his administration granted too many concessions in the name of ending the war.
What they have agreed to regarding nuclear power
According to a person who has seen the text and described it to CNN, the agreement does not specify Iran's commitments regarding high-enriched uranium stockpiles, even though Donald Trump and other officials have insisted that the US will oversee their destruction. Instead, the text states generally that Iran "reiterates that it will never build nuclear weapons," a commitment it also made under the 2015 nuclear deal with the Obama administration. However, American officials argued that Iran has signaled through back channels that it is willing to offer the concessions the Trump administration is seeking. These include American participation in the on-site destruction of enriched materials, in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They clarified that this concession is not explicitly stated in the document.
The $300 billion
Conversely, the text describes with greater clarity the economic relief that Iran can expect if it keeps its commitments. According to the officials, it includes the possibility of access to a $300 billion development fund in the future. Both Donald Trump and JD Vance have emphasized that this fund will not be financed with American capital. The text is less clear regarding the release of Iranian assets, stating only that they will be unfrozen and made "fully available" when progress is made in subsequent rounds of negotiations, without specifying a clear timetable. The agreement also provides that Iran will be able to export oil and petrochemical products immediately after the signing of the memorandum of understanding and that the US will grant sanctions waivers so that it can reap economic benefits from these sales. When asked about the sanctions waivers, an American official characterized the agreement as "performance-based" and stated that Iran "will have access to the benefits of the memorandum only if it complies with all points it has accepted — including not acquiring nuclear weapons, neutralizing its enriched material, and not obstructing free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz."
Mojtaba Khamenei's stance
One of the most complex issues concerns Iran's supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. According to the officials, he has given his tacit approval to the memorandum of understanding, and internal discussions are underway regarding whether he will issue a statement before the official signing ceremony that will take place on Friday in Switzerland. Premature release of the text could complicate efforts to issue such a statement. Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he expects an "official framework" to release the document, while maintaining that he is so proud of its content that he could recite it word for word in front of the cameras. He also claimed that the next round of talks to resolve outstanding issues will be "easier" than the first.
Under pressure
Nevertheless, Donald Trump is under pressure to justify the massive economic and international political turmoil caused by the war, the death of 13 American service members, an unknown number of Iranian civilians, and the tens of billions of dollars spent on military operations. His critics accuse him of solving nothing more than the problem he himself created - Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz - and that he secured no specific and verifiable commitment to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The government's strongest argument is that last year's airstrikes caused serious damage to Iran's nuclear program and destroyed high-enriched uranium stockpiles.
Why he started the war
However, this argument reignites the question of why Donald Trump started this year's war in the first place. And a vague memorandum of understanding would only strengthen the skeptics who believe that Donald Trump places greater importance on image and short-term victories than on the details required for substantial changes. Particular concern exists among Republican senators, such as Lindsey Graham, who may need to approve the lifting of sanctions as part of a final agreement with Iran. The Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune, stated that he "hopes to receive more information and more details."
Israel out of the loop
It is surprising that top officials of the Republican Party are still unaware of the details of the agreement. Even more striking is that Israel, Trump's ally in the war, seems to be in the same position, a fact that suggests a growing distance between the two allies. Politicians from across the political spectrum in Israel are worried that Trump agreed to a full cessation of conflicts in the region - something they would consider detrimental to their country's security if it includes the pro-Iranian Hezbollah in Lebanon. An Israeli source told CNN that the Benjamin Netanyahu government requested to see the text of the agreement, but the request was rejected.
No answer
The Israelis also hope that the memorandum will focus on Iran's missile programs and its proxy allies, such as Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. So far, the White House has provided no answers. Former Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who participated in the negotiations for the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran, stated that the government's reluctance to release the memorandum speaks for itself. "I think it shows they are very worried about its content and how it will be perceived," said Wendy Sherman. The most important conclusion from the information that has become known so far is that, although hostilities may have temporarily ceased, the crisis with Iran is far from being definitively resolved.
Chaos over the $300 billion
At the top of the concerns is the issue of funding that could end up in Tehran. In an interview with CBS News, Vice President JD Vance seemed to indirectly confirm that Iran could gain access to a reconstruction fund of up to $300 billion. Since that interview, the US government has been trying to clarify the situation. It has emphasized that this money will not come from American taxpayers. Instead, it will come from other Gulf countries and will be available only if Iran complies with a peace agreement. JD Vance stated late Monday on Fox News that "we will invite other countries - not us, but other countries - to invest in Iran." He repeated the same position on Tuesday, saying that the US will not allow, for example, the United Arab Emirates to "invest in Iran, unless the Iranians change their behavior." This sounds logical.
Trump's fire at Obama
However, these are distinctions that Republicans — and especially Donald Trump — have in the past rejected or even denounced. And that was when the amounts were significantly smaller than $300 billion. When the Obama administration and other countries signed the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, it included providing Tehran access to billions of dollars. In that case, it was not other countries' money, but Iranian assets that had been frozen in foreign banks due to sanctions. Estimates placed the amount at around $50 billion. This detail, however, almost never appeared in Donald Trump's rhetoric. He argued that this concession was equivalent to a financial gift to the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, even going so far as to falsely claim that the money was given "in cash." He presented the deal as unthinkable and as proof of weakness and the poor negotiating ability of American leaders. These statements may today come back to haunt him.
Funding terrorism
"Iran is receiving a $150 billion financial gift, which will undoubtedly fund terrorism around the world," wrote Trump in an opinion piece in USA Today in September 2015. Donald Trump frequently used the inflated figure of $150 billion. That same month, in Oklahoma, he stated that "we are giving them $150 billion to create terrorism all over the world." In a Republican televised primary debate in December 2015, he characterized the agreement as a "horrible, disgusting, and totally incompetent deal with Iran, where they get $150 billion," adding: "It is a terrorist state." "I just don't understand how we could make a deal where we give a state that supports terrorism $150 billion," he said the following month in Iowa.
The cases are not the same
The two cases are not exactly the same, as unfrozen Iranian assets are not the same as money coming from third countries. However, in both cases, these are funds that do not come from American taxpayers but are made available to Iran as an incentive within the framework of an agreement. Republicans often argued in 2015 that such money is "fungible," meaning it can free up other resources that could then be used to fund terrorist activities. Donald Trump revived this argument during the period of tensions with Iran toward the end of his first term and during his failed 2020 reelection campaign. "They gave $150 billion — think about it," he said at a White House event in September 2019. "How is it possible to do something like that? They gave all that money in cash." As CNN points out, in reality, the US did not pay the money in cash, and the amount was not $150 billion... Toward the end of the 2020 election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly predicted that if Joe Biden were elected, similar deals would result.
Attack on Biden too
"If Biden won, they would give them another $150 billion, just like they did back then," he said in August 2020 in Yuma, Arizona. "The stupidest deal I've ever seen." "Iran will make another crazy deal where they will give them $150 billion or $1.8 billion in cash," he said in October 2020 in Tampa. Even after his defeat in the 2020 elections, during the campaign for the Senate runoff elections in Georgia, Donald Trump warned of a repeat of a similar scenario. "I think they want to start it all over again. Can you believe that?" he said in Valdosta, Georgia. "I wonder if they will give them $150 billion. But no, they will give them 250." On Monday, Trump's own vice president hinted that Iran could gain access to a fund with an even larger amount than that.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών