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, which could start as soon as Friday and will involve Iran’s nuclear program.
“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.”
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.
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.
Oil Sales
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.
Nuclear Program
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.”
Financial Benefits
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.”
Ballistic Missiles
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.
Challenging Israel
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.
Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.
