Since releasing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) last week that appeared broadly favorable to Iran, the Donald Trump administration has repeatedly asserted that Tehran has agreed to other important concessions in ongoing negotiations.
The problem is that none of these concessions appeared in the interim agreement and Iran continues to deny them.
And given the Trump administration’s own well-known credibility problems, it’s not at all clear who to trust.
Nuclear inspections
The biggest example came Tuesday morning, when President Donald Trump made the grand claim that Iran has already agreed to permanent, comprehensive nuclear inspections.
“Iran has fully and completely agreed to nuclear inspections of the highest level for a long period of time into the future (forever!!!),” he wrote in Truth Social. “This will ensure ‘Nuclear Honesty.’ If they hadn’t agreed to this, there would be no more negotiations!”
Likewise, Vice President JD Vance stated at a press conference on Monday in Switzerland that there had been an “important milestone.” .
But Iran has rejected the idea that there has been any significant progress on this issue.
Instead, it said its work with the IAEA, the United Nations’ nuclear monitoring agency, will continue “under current procedures.”
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the country had not agreed to allow inspectors to examine its heavily damaged nuclear facilities and had made “no new commitments.”
In fact, despite Vance’s claim of a major breakthrough, the IAEA already has limited access to Iran. Therefore, simply allowing inspectors in does not, in itself, represent a major step forward.
Broader inspections were also an important part of the nuclear deal reached under the Obama administration, from which Trump withdrew the United States.
Still, Trump didn’t back down Tuesday afternoon on his way to an event in Pennsylvania.
“They are wrong, they are wrong”, . “We have this on record: 100% inspections. And if they were right, I would cancel the meetings right now.”
Using unlocked assets to purchase American products
The Trump administration also said this week that the many billions of dollars in Iranian assets that would be unlocked as part of a peace deal would be used to buy goods from the United States.
The claim is an attempt to respond to criticism that Iran could use the money — along with at least $300 billion in reconstruction resources from Gulf countries — to rebuild its military forces or fund terrorism. Even many conservatives have complained about the agreement’s broad financial concessions to Iran.
Vance said Monday that lead negotiator Jared Kushner had drawn up a plan under which spending of those funds would be approved by the United States and Qatar.
According to him, “the money would then be used to purchase American soybeans, American corn and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people.”
“If Iranian assets are unlocked, they will enrich American farmers and help feed the Iranian people,” Vance said.
US Ambassador to the UN Michael Waltz later told Fox News that “they are going to buy American agricultural products.”
Trump added on Tuesday morning, on his social network, that the money would be “controlled by the United States and used exclusively to purchase food and medical supplies from the United States.”
But when host Laura Ingraham pressed Waltz about how solid this deal was, he suggested the details were still being negotiated.
According to Waltz, the way in which the US would control these resources “is being negotiated right now”.
But Iran’s UN ambassador, Ali Bahreini, rejected the idea on Tuesday. “Iran is the only country that decides what to do with its assets,” he said.
And he added: “I reject any allegation that another country had any role or influence in these decisions or these processes.”
A tariff-free Strait of Hormuz
The memorandum of understanding states that vessels will be able to transit the Strait of Hormuz — over which Iran exercises great influence by threatening to close it — “without charging fees, for just 60 days.”
What happens after that is a matter of disagreement between the parties.
Trump said last week, during the G7 summit in France, that the strait would also remain “tariff-free” after the 60 days.
“Someone said it would be free for… no, no, it will be free, period,” Trump declared last Tuesday. “When it reopens permanently, it will be free.”
On Monday, he returned to the topic: “We have an agreement that it will be open and tariff-free. We had a little discussion about that; it will be tariff-free.”
Trump had already made a similar promise in an interview with journalist David Sanger, from The New York Times, saying that the strait would be “permanently tariff-free”.
But Iran did not say that.
In fact, the country has already anticipated a plan under which it would charge “fees” for certain services. And the New York Times reported this week that this plan has already begun to be implemented.
The simple fact that the memorandum only provides for free for 60 days suggests that this is a really sensitive issue in the negotiations.
And the dispute apparently remains serious enough that Trump this weekend threatened to “take control” of the strait and make the United States charge for passage.
Who to believe?
Normally, answering this question would be simple — especially when it comes to authoritarian regimes like Iran.
But Trump’s tendency to make exaggerated and false claims makes the situation more complicated.
After all, this is a president who suggested more than 30 times, over more than two months, that a deal with Iran was about to be reached.
More than two months ago, he claimed that Iran had already “agreed to everything” that was being demanded, when it clearly had not.
Likewise, Trump and his administration claimed that they had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear program.
Trump even claimed that the attacks had also destroyed “Iran’s future nuclear capability.”
Mass CNN and other outlets reported that .
And, eight months later, Trump launched a war alleging, once again, the supposed imminent nuclear threat posed by Iran.
Simply put: The Trump administration also faces serious credibility problems.
And this also applies to the familiar terms of current negotiations.
For example, before the memo was released, Trump was asked whether the interim agreement included “a $300 billion fund financed by Gulf allies.” He responded that this was “false.”
However, the memorandum effectively contains this reconstruction fund.
Vance and government officials also largely dismissed information reported by Iranian media about the memo as “propaganda.”
A White House spokesperson also stated that a preliminary version of the document published by CNN last week “did not reflect the language of the actual memo.”
But many of the allegations made by Iranian media ended up appearing in the final document.
And the definitive version turned out to be quite similar to the draft released by CNNwith just a few wording differences.
It’s also worth asking: if some of these concessions in favor of the United States are so solid and could be agreed so quickly, why didn’t they appear in the memo?
Why was the document so favorable to the Iranian side?
The Trump administration suggested that this was due to the delicate political situation faced by Iran in the negotiations — and even that there were parallel and confidential agreements that were not explained in the document.
But politics are also delicate in the United States right now.
And the government’s “trust us” approach may not be enough.
