Is Money the Stumbling Block in the US-Iran Deal?
The plan for a peace deal between President Donald Trump’s administration and the Iranian government is facing a major obstacle from within his own party. Conservative groups in the US have launched sharp criticism after indications emerged that Tehran would be granted access to a staggering amount of financial resources. The issue of fresh funds flowing to Iran has quickly risen to the top of the domestic controversy list in Washington, surfacing shortly after a draft memorandum of understanding between the two countries was leaked to the public.
Vice President JD Vance implicitly confirmed the possibility of Iran gaining access to reconstruction funds. The value of the economic recovery aid is estimated to reach US$300 billion, equivalent to Rp5,340 trillion. ‘We will invite other countries—not us, but other nations—to invest in Iran,’ Vance stated in an official interview with Fox News.
The White House quickly moved to clarify the remarks in an effort to quell public anger. The Trump administration stressed that the massive sum would not involve a single cent from American taxpayers. Officials explained the scheme consists purely of investment funds from Gulf Arab states, which would only be disbursed if Iran complies with all points of the peace agreement proposed by Washington.
Vance reinforced the administration’s position in a subsequent interview, providing an example that the US would not permit the United Arab Emirates to invest in Iran unless Tehran agreed to change its political behaviour. ‘We will not allow the UAE, for instance, to invest in Iran unless the Iranians change their behaviour,’ Vance asserted during an appearance on the Megyn Kelly programme, outlining the strict conditions attached to the investment.
However, the defence and distinction the White House is attempting to build are being viewed as inconsistent. The public notes that such nuanced definitions were something the Republican Party—and Trump himself—had vehemently rejected in the past. Trump’s current softening stance is seen as deeply ironic, given that the financial compromise now being negotiated is far more massive than previous deals. The incentive package currently being designed is worth several times more than the agreement he once relentlessly attacked.
During Barack Obama’s presidency, the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 also opened up financial access for Iran. At that time, the funds released were not foreign money but rather Iran’s own assets that had been frozen in foreign banks. The total value of Iranian assets unfrozen by the Obama administration was estimated at around US$50 billion (Rp890 trillion). Yet, every detail and nuance of that distinction was consistently ignored in Trump’s political rhetoric.
Trump repeatedly attacked Obama’s policy, calling it a display of American diplomatic weakness and incompetence. He accused the deal of being a cash bonanza for a state sponsor of terrorism. ‘Iran received a windfall of US$150 billion (Rp2,670 trillion), which will undoubtedly be used to fund terrorism around the world,’ Trump wrote in a USA Today opinion piece in September 2015, a statement that has now come back to haunt him. He frequently cited the inflated figure of US$150 billion on the campaign trail in states like Oklahoma and Iowa, branding the Obama-era agreement a ‘horrible, disgusting, and totally incompetent’ piece of legislation.
This digital paper trail has now become a weapon turned against its owner, dealing a heavy blow to the president’s political reputation. Opposition groups are now questioning Trump’s consistency, as he opens the door to a potential flow of US$300 billion (Rp5,340 trillion) to his arch-enemy. Internal critics from the Republican camp are also resurrecting the party’s 2015 argument about the fungible nature of money. They contend that even if foreign investment funds are not directly used for terrorism, the influx of capital frees up Iran’s domestic budget to be diverted towards military funding. Trump himself maintained this line of attack on cash payments right through to the 2020 presidential election campaign, at one point predicting that a Joe Biden victory would result in Iran receiving another ‘crazy’ multi-billion-dollar compromise from the White House.