Iran gets all of the benefits, literally billions and billions of dollars
In the ancient tension between force and diplomacy, the United States finds itself caught between two impulses — the desire to claim a historic deal and the fear of having given too much away too soon. Trump's provisional agreement with Iran, signed in Paris and immediately tested in Lucerne, has drawn an unusual coalition of critics from both parties who argue that sanctions relief and unrestricted oil sales were surrendered before any nuclear guarantees were secured. The Iranian delegation's walkout, triggered by Trump's simultaneous threats on Truth Social, raises the oldest question in statecraft: whether a negotiation can survive the negotiator.
- Iran's delegation walked out of the first direct talks in Lucerne within hours of Trump posting military threats on Truth Social at the very moment negotiations began.
- Bipartisan opposition erupted in Washington, with figures as ideologically distant as Susan Rice and Ted Cruz united in the view that the deal handed Iran billions before extracting any nuclear commitments.
- The structural flaw critics identify is one of sequencing — sanctions relief and unrestricted oil sales were granted upfront, reversing the logic of Obama's 2015 framework, which tied relief to verified compliance.
- Vice-President Vance insisted progress had been made and the situation was merely 'a little bit messy,' while Energy Secretary Wright argued that military action had already shifted the leverage in America's favor.
- The deal now sits in an uncertain middle ground — neither collapsed nor advancing — with Iran holding billions in newly accessible revenue and the United States holding fewer cards than it did before the agreement was signed.
Donald Trump's provisional agreement with Iran was already under strain before the ink had dried. On Sunday morning, as American and Iranian negotiators sat down for their first direct talks in Lucerne, Switzerland, Trump posted a threat to Truth Social: halt proxy operations in Lebanon immediately, or face military strikes harder than those delivered the week before. Iran's delegation walked out within hours. State news agency IRNA noted, with deliberate precision, that the threats had been published at the same moment talks began.
The diplomatic rupture was met in Washington by a rare convergence of opposition. Susan Rice, who served as national security adviser under Obama, called the memorandum of understanding 'jaw-dropping' and 'egregious,' focusing her criticism on its sequencing: Trump had granted Iran the ability to sell oil freely on global markets — unfreezing billions of dollars — without first securing a comprehensive nuclear agreement. Under Obama's 2015 deal, which Trump had abandoned in his first term, sanctions relief came only after full compliance was verified. Rice argued the reversal of that logic was a fundamental error.
Republicans were no more forgiving. Senator John Cornyn warned that Iran would use the released funds to rebuild its ballistic missile arsenal and resume uranium enrichment. Senator Ted Cruz was characteristically direct: 'History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea.' Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat, rejected any framing of the deal as a diplomatic achievement, comparing Trump to an arsonist claiming credit for escaping a fire he had started.
Vice-President Vance offered a contrasting read, insisting that 'great progress' had already been made in Lucerne and that the broader situation, while 'a little bit messy,' was heading in the right direction. Energy Secretary Chris Wright argued that the military operations of the previous week had fundamentally changed the balance of power — Iran's leverage was diminished, the Strait of Hormuz was open, and oil prices were falling regardless of what happened at the negotiating table.
What the episode left unresolved was whether the walkout marked a tactical pause or a genuine unraveling. The memorandum was always meant as a preliminary framework, not a final agreement. But by releasing its most valuable concessions before securing nuclear guarantees, the administration had given Iran its primary objective while retaining little to bargain with. The bipartisan chorus of criticism suggested that even if talks resumed, the political foundation beneath the deal had already begun to crack.
Donald Trump's provisional agreement with Iran, signed in Paris just days earlier, was already unraveling in real time. On Sunday morning, as the first direct talks between American and Iranian negotiators convened in Lucerne, Switzerland, Trump took to Truth Social with a threat: Iran must immediately halt its proxy operations in Lebanon, or face renewed military strikes—harder than the ones delivered the previous week. The message landed like a grenade in the negotiating room. Within hours, Iran's delegation walked out, according to the country's state news agency IRNA, which noted pointedly that Trump had published his threats "at the same time as the talks began."
The collapse of diplomatic momentum was matched by a rare alignment of political opposition back in Washington. From the left, Susan Rice—who had served as national security adviser under Barack Obama and ambassador to the United Nations—called the memorandum of understanding "jaw-dropping" and "horrific," then escalated her language to "flimsy" and "egregious." Her complaint was structural: Trump had granted major concessions upfront without securing a comprehensive nuclear agreement first. Most critically, the deal allowed Iran to sell its oil and oil products on the global market without restriction, unfreezing billions of dollars that the country could deploy however it chose. Under Obama's 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump had scrapped during his first term, sanctions relief came only after a full agreement was reached, and any unfrozen assets were restricted to humanitarian spending. Rice told ABC News that this reversal of sequencing was a fundamental negotiating error.
From the right, Senator John Cornyn of Texas—a Republican who had just lost his primary race—amplified a Wall Street Journal analysis showing that economic sanctions had largely failed to constrain hostile regimes. He went further in earlier remarks, saying he had hoped the administration would have "finished the job" by eliminating Iran's nuclear capability before releasing any funds. Now, he warned, Iran would use that money to rebuild its ballistic missile arsenal and resume uranium enrichment. Senator Ted Cruz, also a Texas Republican, was blunter: "History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea."
Senator Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, rejected any suggestion that Trump deserved credit for diplomatic progress. "That's like literally an arsonist starting a fire and getting credit for running out of the burning building," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. He characterized the deal as capitulation, noting that Iran received "all of the benefits, literally billions and billions of dollars" while the United States surrendered leverage it had spent months building through military action. Even the New York Post, owned by Trump-friendly Rupert Murdoch, published a scathing editorial: "With Strait of Hormuz held hostage, Trump's Iran deal is worse than Obama's."
Vice-President JD Vance, however, struck a different note. As the Lucerne talks wrapped up on Sunday morning, he claimed negotiators had "already made great progress over just the last few hours" and expected more to come. On the subject of Israel's ongoing military operations in Lebanon, Vance acknowledged things were "a little bit messy" but said he felt "great about where we are." Energy Secretary Chris Wright offered a different framing: the military actions of the previous week—destroying Iranian military capabilities and forcing open the Strait of Hormuz—had fundamentally altered the negotiating dynamic. Iran no longer possessed the leverage it had wielded in previous talks. Oil flows through the strait had already returned to normal, Wright noted, and prices would continue to decline regardless of how negotiations proceeded.
What remained unclear was whether the administration's threats and the Iranian walkout represented a tactical pause or a genuine breakdown. The provisional deal had been structured as a memorandum of understanding—a preliminary framework meant to establish principles before a comprehensive agreement was negotiated. But by releasing sanctions relief and oil-sale access before securing nuclear guarantees, Trump had handed Iran its primary objective while retaining little leverage to extract concessions on the issues that had prompted military action in the first place. The bipartisan criticism suggested that even if negotiations resumed, the political ground beneath the agreement had already shifted.
Citações Notáveis
That's like literally an arsonist starting a fire and getting credit for running out of the burning building. We have surrendered our power.— Senator Cory Booker, on NBC's Meet the Press
Iran's ability to withstand sanctions so far exposes a hard fact for Washington: economic pressure has largely failed to cow rogue regimes.— Senator John Cornyn, citing Wall Street Journal analysis
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Trump threaten Iran while negotiations were literally happening?
The threat was about leverage—or what he believed remained of it. He wanted Iran to rein in Hezbollah in Lebanon. But the timing was catastrophic. You don't typically issue ultimatums while sitting across the table from someone.
Did the threat actually cause the walkout?
Iran's news agency said yes. They framed it as Trump undermining the talks in real time. Whether it was the stated reason or the final straw is hard to know, but the optics were clear: the US president was negotiating with one hand and threatening with the other.
What bothers the critics most about the deal itself?
The sequence. Trump gave Iran access to billions in oil sales and unfrozen assets before getting a comprehensive nuclear agreement. Under Obama's deal, you had to finish the whole negotiation first. Here, Iran got the money upfront with no guarantee on nukes.
So Iran walks away with cash and no strings attached?
Not quite. The memorandum is preliminary. But yes—they have the money now, and the US has less to bargain with if talks resume. That's the leverage problem everyone's pointing out.
Why would Trump structure it this way?
The administration argues the military strikes weakened Iran so much that they don't need to hold back concessions. Wright said Iran has lost its traditional leverage. But critics say you don't give away your cards just because you won a hand.
Is there any chance this deal actually works?
Vance says progress is being made. But the walkout, the bipartisan criticism, the structural flaws—it's hard to see how trust gets rebuilt when the US president is threatening military action while his negotiators are in the room.