The Trump administration is promoting a supposed peace deal with Iran as a historic breakthrough, saying it includes strict, lasting nuclear oversight and U.S. control over the use of unfrozen Iranian funds. But Iranian officials and U.S. allies in the region are describing a very different arrangement, while criticism in Congress and concern in the Gulf are putting the diplomacy effort at real risk.
President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have said the deal would bring permanent nuclear monitoring and let Washington direct how the released money is spent. Trump posted that Iran had agreed to the highest level of nuclear supervision for the long term, without time limits. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, rejected that, saying Tehran has accepted no new commitments and will continue working with the International Atomic Energy Agency under existing procedures.
The dispute also extends to the unfrozen assets. Vance said the funds would be used to buy U.S. agricultural products under American and Qatari supervision, but Iran’s UN ambassador, Ali Bahreini, said Iran alone decides what to do with its own assets and dismissed any outside role. On the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said it would be permanently exempt from tolls, yet Iran has already begun charging for some services, and the memorandum disclosed so far reportedly grants toll-free passage for only 60 days. Trump responded over the weekend by threatening that the United States would seize the strait itself.
In Washington, the Senate voted 50 to 48 to curtail the president’s war powers against Iran, the first such use of the War Powers Act since 1973. The White House says the law is unconstitutional, but the vote signals weakening support for Trump within his own party. Separately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited the United Arab Emirates this week to reassure Arab allies, who fear the deal gives Tehran regional legitimacy and economic relief, including a possible $300 billion reconstruction fund and no limits on ballistic missiles. Gulf states are also questioning whether U.S. security policy is shifting at their expense.
