UMVA has learned that Vice President JD Vance is pushing back on comparisons between the emerging Trump-Vance Iran pact and claims that the agreement bears too much resemblance to President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal.
Critics have pointed to Vance’s defense of the memorandum of understanding to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, under which Iran would receive economic benefits only after complying with nuclear restrictions, as evidence of the similarity. They argue that this dynamic mirrors how Obama promoted the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which Trump and Vance have long reviled.
Vance, however, suggested that the comparison stems from a misconception because the proverbial carrot-and-stick positions from the Obama deal have been reversed. "You’ve got Iranian propagandists out there saying, well, ‘we get all these things’, and they leave out the fact that they only get those things if they fundamentally transform themselves as a country," he said.
The Vice President emphasized that the deal could open the door to economic cooperation for Tehran throughout the Mideast if it complies. "So the United States wins either way. As the president said, either they get nothing, we destroy their nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz [is] open, or they fundamentally transformed themselves. And that's a big one too. It's really up to them," he said.
Host Jesse Watters agreed that the deal is the "exact opposite" of what Obama and former Sen. John Kerry forged a decade ago. "If they fund the proxies they don’t get the economic benefits, and the missiles are covered because 85% of them have been destroyed and 90% of their industrial base has been destroyed," Watters said.
In a surprising echo of Obama's 2015 stance, Vance and administration officials are now using similar language to defend the new deal. This raises questions about the extent to which the Trump-Vance pact really differs from its predecessor.
Critics, however, remain skeptical, noting that Trump spent years attacking the JCPOA, arguing it provided economic relief in exchange for insufficient concessions. Sen. Mark Kelly, a Trump critic and former astronaut, suggested the deal resembled something candidate Trump would have lambasted.
Iranian security expert Behnam Ben Taleblu warned that any deal with the Islamic Republic is a deal with the devil. "When Trump left the Iran deal in 2018, he didn't leave it because of violation, he left it because that which the U.S. got was not worth that which the U.S. gave — meaning the nuclear concessions the U.S. got was not worth the sanctions relief the U.S. gave," Taleblu said.
Taleblu urged the administration to fully release the text of the deal to present a true comparison with both the JCPOA and the less-remembered 2013 JPA. He also cautioned that the administration faces a headwind in the form of the American public’s limited tolerance for economic repercussions.
The memorandum of understanding lays out immediate waivers for Iranian oil exports, as well as a framework for $300 billion in economic development. However, officials emphasized that oil waivers were the only major benefit Tehran would realize before any final agreement is reached after a 60-day window.
