The Trump administration’s new framework with grants Tehran immediate oil sanctions waivers while postponing the most consequential nuclear questions for future negotiations, a gamble officials acknowledge carries risks because they expect Iran may not comply.Â
“We come in with the full expectation that they will lie and they will cheat,” one senior U.S. official said on a call with reporters Wednesday, arguing that any final agreement would require a verification and enforcement mechanism capable of detecting violations.
The agreement, which establishes a 60-day negotiating period, rests on a bet that Iran can be deterred from violating its commitments through monitoring and enforcement. Administration officials say any sanctions waivers can be clawed back if Iran fails to comply, while critics argue the U.S. is giving up leverage before the toughest nuclear issues have been resolved.
The memorandum of understanding, unveiled by administration officials on a call with reporters Wednesday, says the Treasury Department will immediately issue waivers allowing Iran to export crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, as well as access associated banking, insurance and transportation services.Â
But the agreement does not immediately require Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, surrender its enriched uranium stockpile or end enrichment. Instead, the deal says the U.S. and Iran will negotiate the “disposition” of Irans enriched uranium stockpile, with down-blending on site under supervision identified as the minimum methodology.
Administration officials defended that language as an early nuclear concession, saying the U.S. continues to push for more.
“Of course that’s a flaw and we will push for more than that. But the fact that they’re conceding to that is a major, major win for the United States of America,” one senior U.S. official said on the call. “They’re saying we will destroy the enriched stockpile, and this is how we’re going to do it at a minimum.”
Down-blending would reduce the enrichment level of the material, but would not remove it from Iran.Â
Trump has defended the framework as necessary to avoid a prolonged conflict, closed shipping lanes and a market shock.
“If we didn’t do this deal, we could have dropped more bombs for another three weeks, two weeks, four weeks, two years,” Trump said Wednesday at the G7 summit in Ãvian, France. “You would never have the Hormuz Strait open ⦠Your market would have, instead of going up, would go down at levels that nobody ever saw before, maybe except for 1929.”Â
“I did not want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump added.
The framework drew support from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a prominent Iran hawk who said after speaking with special envoy Steve Witkoff that he thought the 60-day agreement would be “beneficial.”
“Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying,” Graham said.
Others criticized the deal for offering sanctions relief before Iran had agreed to anything concrete on the nuclear front.
“How do you expect Iran to agree to anything in the future, let alone within 60 days, when you’ve given up all your leverage?” Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Fox News Digital.
Broader sanctions relief, a withdrawal of U.S. forces and a $300 billion reconstruction fund are also contemplated as part of a final deal if both sides can reach one within 60 days.
Those who opposed the war now argue that the memorandum is the best deal the U.S. can get after the conflict and blockade.
“The U.S. bargaining position was hurt by the war, not helped by it,” Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, told Fox News Digital.
Kelanic said Trump i
