JD Vance Defends Iran Deal Termed "Surrender" by Critics
The
vice president said the United States had leverage to dictate the outcome of
the next round of negotiations. But he claimed incorrectly that Iran got no new
benefit from the lifting of oil sanctions.
·
U.S.
Vice President JD Vance
defended the preliminary U.S.–Iran agreement, calling it a “win for the
American people.”
·
He
argued that the United States retains strong leverage in future negotiations
and can enforce compliance through verification measures.
·
Vance
claimed that lifting oil sanctions was “not a new benefit” for Iran, but
critics argue the deal allows Iran to sell oil more freely, at better prices,
and to a wider range of buyers.
·
The
agreement helped reopen the Strait
of Hormuz, contributing to lower global oil and gas prices.
·
On
the nuclear issue, Iran reaffirmed its commitment not to pursue nuclear
weapons, but the deal leaves unresolved whether Iran can continue uranium
enrichment.
·
The
memorandum requires Iran to dilute (“down-blend”) its enriched uranium
stockpile but does not require it to remove the material from the country.
·
Critics
note that the agreement is less restrictive than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,
under which most of Iran’s enriched uranium was shipped abroad.
·
The
deal includes potential economic benefits for Iran, including access to frozen
assets, sanctions relief, and support for a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund.
·
Vance
stated that these benefits would depend on Iran fully complying with future
agreement terms.
·
Critics
contend that the memorandum provides significant concessions without firm
guarantees of Iranian compliance.
·
The
agreement does not address Iran’s ballistic missile program, a key concern for Israel and several
regional allies.
·
Vance
suggested countries have the right to maintain defensive capabilities, marking
a shift from earlier U.S. statements that targeted Iran’s missile arsenal.
·
U.S.
intelligence assessments reportedly indicate Iran still retains a large portion
of its missile stockpile despite the conflict.
·
Vance
criticized members of the Israeli government who opposed the agreement and
urged them not to attack Donald
Trump, describing him as Israel’s strongest ally.
·
He
also pointed to support from Gulf countries, although some regional analysts
say concerns remain about the deal’s failure to address Iran’s missile
capabilities.
·
Vance’s
planned trip to Switzerland for further negotiations with Iran was postponed,
creating uncertainty about the next phase of talks.
[ABS
News Service/19.06.2026]
Vice President JD Vance on Thursday
defended the preliminary deal to stop the war with Iran as a “win for the
American people.” But he relied in part on a string of aspirational, vague and
misleading claims about the agreement.
Mr. Vance, speaking at the White House,
sought to counter criticism that the deal would reward and
embolden Iran without ensuring that the United States achieved the main
objectives laid out by President Trump at the start of the fighting. The vice
president asserted that Iran would gain little if it did not agree to U.S.
demands in the next phase of negotiations and will involve Iran’s nuclear
program.
Late Thursday, the White House said that
Mr. Vance was delaying a trip to Switzerland to negotiate with Iran, raising
uncertainty over the next phase of discussions to end the conflict. Mr. Vance
said during the briefing that he did not know whether he would still travel to
Switzerland on Friday for the negotiations.
It is unclear when Mr. Vance might
reschedule his trip.
The agreement, which reopened the Strait
of Hormuz, appeared to provide some economic relief to Americans on Thursday,
as oil and gas prices dropped to levels not seen since the early
days of the war. Mr. Vance highlighted the development as he continued his
increasingly prominent role as a defender of the deal.
“We have all the cards,” Mr. Vance said,
adding, “If they change their behavior, big things are going to happen for Iran
and for the world. If they don’t, no skin off our backs.”
But he sought to divert attention from
the text of the memorandum of understanding released by the two sides on
Wednesday, which appeared to give Iran a number of immediate benefits. He
worked to focus instead on what he insisted would be a favorable outcome for
the United States in the coming round of negotiations for a final deal.
“Words don’t matter, ladies and
gentlemen,” Mr. Vance said. “We’re about verification.”
Here is a look at the vice president’s
main arguments in favor of the deal.
Mr. Vance claimed that one immediate
concession in the memorandum of understanding — lifting oil sanctions on Iran —
was “not a new benefit” for the country.
The claim ignores how the economic
penalties in place before the war forced Iran to resort to desperate methods to
sell oil. The sanctions forced Iran to sell its oil at a steep discount from
market prices, mostly to refineries in China that were willing to risk running
afoul of U.S. sanctions.
Now, under its preliminary deal with the
United States, Iran will be able to sell its oil for more, and to a wider array
of buyers. The country will also receive payment in more attractive currencies.
Mr. Vance was correct that the removal of
the U.S. blockade on Iranian oil would allow the country’s exports to return to
prewar levels — assuming it still has the production capacity to do so — and so
it was unlikely that Iran would sell substantially more oil than before the
fighting began, at least initially.
In the memorandum, Iran reiterated its
longstanding commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon, an assurance that the
United States and its allies have long regarded as largely meaningless. But the
agreement does not settle the question of whether Iran will retain the right to
enrich uranium, something that Tehran has long insisted on. It is vague about
whether Iran will be able to keep stores of uranium after any final agreement
goes into effect.
Mr. Vance projected confidence that the
final agreement would include terms upholding Mr. Trump’s goal of ensuring that
Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons, and that Iran would not benefit from the
changes promised in the memorandum if it does not comply with the U.S. demands.
“They have promised not to enrich, they
have promised they would allow inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched
stockpile,” Mr. Vance added. “That’s why the deal contemplates a number of
benefits if they do those things, but it doesn’t do anything if they don’t
actually meet those promises.”
That the agreement does not stipulate the
future of the stockpile of high-grade and low-grade uranium is notable,
particularly because Mr. Trump has said that the 2015 Obama-era Iran deal
financially rewarded Tehran while phasing out the country’s limits on
enrichment.
The one paragraph in Mr. Trump’s
preliminary deal that addresses the nuclear program requires Iran to
“down-blend” — essentially dilute — the approximately 11 tons of enriched
nuclear material in its possession, including 970 pounds that are enriched to 60
percent, just short of bomb grade. But it does not require Iran to surrender
that material and ship it out of the country.
Under the Obama-era deal, Iran sent about
97 percent of its stockpile to Russia.
Mr. Vance still argued that Iran was
unlikely to rebuild their nuclear program without getting “a lot of money.”
The memorandum commits the United States
to supporting the establishment of a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran,
and it opens the door to the unfreezing of billions of dollars in frozen
Iranian assets held around the world.
The memorandum also calls for the lifting
of an array of international sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy for
years, subject to agreement on the final deal.
Critics have said the memorandum amounts
to a giveaway, with no assurance of the United States getting anything in
return.
Mr. Vance emphasized that the United
States would not contribute money to the reconstruction fund. The financial
benefits in the deal, he said, would only be available to Iran if it complied
“fully” with conditions the United States could seek as part of the final
agreement, and if the country chose to “change their behavior.”
But the memorandum says that the United
States will unfreeze assets and release restricted funds “upon the
implementation of this M.O.U.”
The preliminary agreement makes no
mention of curbing Iran’s ballistic missile program, a major concern of
Israel’s and a goal set by administration officials in the early days of the
war. Iran’s missile program has allowed it to reach targets across the region,
including in Israel.
Asked about the issue, Mr. Vance repeated
Mr. Trump’s assertion that it was impossible to tell any country that it could
not defend itself.
That is a turnabout for an administration
that in March described the destruction of Iran’s ballistic missiles as one of
the goals of the war. “The United States is conducting an operation to
eliminate the threat of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles,” Secretary of
State Marco Rubio said then.
That objective, according to U.S. intelligence
estimates, was
not achieved in the war’s first two months. While Mr. Vance also said on
Thursday that much of Iran’s military had been “destroyed,” a classified U.S.
intelligence report estimated that Iran retained roughly 70 percent of its
prewar missile stockpile as of last month. Mr. Vance argued that the total
number of missiles mattered less than the state of the missile launchers.
Iran, however, is still showing that it
can fire off missiles, and its Gulf neighbors have felt threatened enough that
they have urged the United States to sign the peace deal.
Mr. Vance appeared intent on responding
to criticism from Israeli lawmakers, who echoed some Republicans in Washington
by arguing that the deal gave Iran economic relief and did not address the
country’s nuclear program.
Mr. Vance delivered a pointed warning to
the Israelis, especially to the members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
cabinet who have attacked Mr. Trump.
“Donald J. Trump is the only head of
state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this
moment,” Mr. Vance said. He added: “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli
government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have
anywhere left in the entire world.”
Mr. Vance also pointed to support for the
agreement from other Gulf nations, as he tried to direct reporters away from
Israel’s criticism.
“I tend to think that you should trust
the people who know the Iranians the best and who have the most to lose,” Mr.
Vance said. “What are the Gulf Arab states saying about this deal?”
Analysts, however, say that officials in
the region feel a deep sense of frustration over the deal, particularly because
it does not address the Iranian missile system that has hit airports, energy
facilities, hotels and military installations in the region.