ANALYSIS || Nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz are the main sources of tension. Between constant threats from both sides, it is difficult to understand the true dimension of a possible agreement
Since releasing a memorandum of understanding last week that appeared heavily biased in favor of Iran, the Trump administration has repeatedly stated that Tehran has agreed to other important concessions in ongoing negotiations.
The problem is that none of them were in the memo – and Iran continues to deny them.
And given the Trump administration’s own credibility problems, it’s not at all clear who to trust.
Nuclear inspections
The biggest example came this Tuesday morning, when US President Donald Trump made the bombshell claim that Iran has already agreed to major perpetual nuclear inspections.
“…Iran has fully and completely agreed to high-level nuclear inspections for a long period into the (infinite!!!) future,” he wrote on Truth Social. “This will ensure ‘nuclear honesty.’ If they didn’t agree to this, there would be no more negotiations!”
Likewise, the Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, at a press conference this Monday in Switzerland, cited an “important milestone”. He said Iran has agreed to receive inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
But Iran has rejected the idea that there has been any significant progress on this front.
Instead, it stated that its work with the IAEA, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, would continue “under current procedures.”
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei assured that Iran did not agree to allow inspectors to examine its seriously damaged nuclear facilities and that it did not make “any new commitments”.
In fact, despite Vance’s claim of a major breakthrough, the IAEA already has limited access to Iran. Therefore, merely allowing entry is not, in itself, a major step forward.
More thorough inspections were also an important point of the Iran nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration, from which Trump withdrew.
But Trump didn’t back down Tuesday afternoon as he headed to an event in Pennsylvania. “They are wrong, they are wrong,” he told journalists about the Iranians. “Everything is already right: inspections in 100% of cases. And if they were right, I would cancel the meetings right now.”
Use of thawed assets in American products
The Trump administration also said this week that billions in Iranian assets that would be unfrozen as part of a peace deal would be used for American products. This statement was made in an attempt to combat criticism that Iran could use the money, along with at least $300 billion in reconstruction funds from Gulf countries, to rebuild its armed forces or finance terrorism. Even many conservatives have complained about the agreement’s extensive financial concessions to Iran.
Vance said on Monday that chief negotiator Jared Kushner had drawn up a plan under which the spending of the money would be approved by the United States and Qatar. He stated that “the money would then be used to purchase American soybeans, corn and wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people.”
“If Iranian assets are unfrozen, they will enrich American farmers and help feed the Iranian people,” Vance said.
The US ambassador to the United Nations, Michael Waltz, also stated this Monday, in an interview with Fox News, that “they will buy American agricultural products”.
This Tuesday morning, Trump added, in a post on social media, that the money would be “controlled by the USA and used to purchase food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States.”
But when Fox News’ Laura Ingraham pressed Waltz on the strength of the deal, the official suggested it was still being determined. He said that “how we are going to control” the money is “being negotiated right now”.
And Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ali Bahreini, rejected the idea this Tuesday.
“Iran is the only country that decides what to do with its resources”, reiterated Ali Bahreini. And he added: “I reject any allegation that another country would have influence on these decisions or these processes.”
Toll-free Strait of Hormuz
The memorandum of understanding states that vessels will be able to transit the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed to great advantage, “free of charge, for just 60 days”.
What happens after that is something the two sides cannot agree on.
Trump said last week, at the G7 summit in France, that the strait would also be “toll-free” after the 60 days.
“Someone said, ‘Oh, it’s toll-free for…’ – no, no, it’s toll-free, period,” Trump said last Tuesday. “When it opens permanently, it will be toll-free.”
He added this Monday that “we have an agreement that it will be open and it will be toll-free. We had a little discussion about it; it is toll-free.”
Trump had already made a similar promise in an interview with David Sanger of The New York Times, saying that the strait would be “permanently toll-free.”
But Iran has not confirmed this. In fact, the company had already presented a plan under which it would charge “fees” for certain services. And The New York Times reported this Tuesday morning that this plan has already been put into practice.
The mere fact that the memorandum of understanding only exempts the Straits from fees for 60 days suggests that this is a real point of friction.
And the dispute is apparently still serious enough — despite Trump’s assurances — that this weekend he threatened to “take possession” of the strait and make the United States charge for passage.
Who to believe?
The answer to this question is usually quite simple – especially when it comes to authoritarian regimes like Iran.
But Trump’s tendency to make absurd and false claims makes everything more complicated.
After all, this is a president who suggested more than three dozen times, over more than two months, that a deal with Iran was close to being reached. He said more than two months ago that Iran had already “agreed to everything” he demanded — when it clearly had not.
Similarly, Trump and his administration claimed that last year’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities had “destroyed” its nuclear program. Trump went so far as to say that the attacks had also destroyed “Iran’s future nuclear capability”.
But CNN and other media outlets reported that initial assessments by U.S. intelligence services did not corroborate these claims. And indeed, eight months later, Trump was launching a war citing, once again, the supposed imminent nuclear threat posed by Iran.
In other words: the Trump administration also has serious credibility problems.
And this also applies to the known terms of ongoing negotiations.
For example, before the memorandum of understanding was released last week, Trump was asked whether it included “a $300 billion fund financed by Gulf allies.” He said this was “false”. But in fact, the memorandum of understanding contains such a reconstruction fund.
Vance and the administration also largely dismissed Iranian media claims about the memorandum of understanding, calling them “propaganda.” A White House spokesperson further stated that a draft version of the memorandum of understanding published by CNN last week “did not reflect the language of the final memorandum of understanding.”
But many of the Iranian allegations ended up being reiterated in the final memorandum of understanding. And the final document was similar to the preliminary version published by CNN, with some language differences.
It’s also worth asking: if some of these concessions to the American side are so ironclad and could be agreed so quickly, why aren’t they in the memorandum of understanding? Why does this document favor the Iranians so much?
The Trump administration has suggested that this is due to the delicate political situation on the Iranian side of the negotiations – and even that there are some secret gentlemen’s agreements that were not listed in the document.
But the political situation is also delicate in the United States at the moment. And the government’s “just trust us” approach may not be enough.
