Trump Claims Peace with Iran, But Experts Urge Caution
President Donald Trump has announced a significant "Great Deal" with Iran, asserting it will usher in peace and security for the entire region. In a June 14 post on Truth Social, Trump declared, "Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me. The Leaders of the Region have, for the first time, found a President who can help them achieve real Peace."
The two nations have signed a memorandum of understanding, with a formal signing ceremony expected in Geneva on June 19. However, this agreement is not the final word, as it initiates another 60 days of negotiations, notably concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its stockpile of enriched uranium.
Adding a layer of complexity, President Trump also indicated to The New York Times that should a nuclear accord not materialize, the U.S. would resume military attacks or, alternatively, act as "the guardian of the Middle East" in exchange for 20% of the region’s revenues.
This declaration has drawn scrutiny from experts who suggest Trump may be overstating the current status of the U.S.-Iran framework. Their caution is amplified by the White House’s decision not to publicly release the memorandum of understanding.
Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former Middle East adviser, expressed skepticism, stating, "We are not and we have never been talking about peace with Iran. No president has pursued peace, normalized peace relations. This is just another round in a historical conflict of almost half a century, between Islamic Republic and various Republican and Democratic administrations."
Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a foreign policy think tank, elaborated on what a true peace agreement would entail: a permanent cessation of hostilities and the normalization of diplomatic relations, which have been severed by the U.S. since 1980 following the Iran hostage crisis.
Trump has a history of portraying himself as a peacemaker and has even sought the Nobel Peace Prize, at times appearing to inflate his achievements. When reached for comment regarding Trump’s statements and the memorandum, the White House did not respond.
This analysis will delve into whether the current U.S.-Iran agreement can be classified as a peace deal and will also examine the nature of the 2015 nuclear agreement reached under President Barack Obama.
Is Trump’s Agreement a Peace Deal?
Miller contends that the memorandum of understanding signed by Trump does not signify a normalization of economic and political ties between the two countries. He points out that U.S. negotiations with Iran do not resemble binding peace treaties, such as the 1979 agreement between Egypt and Israel.
In an article for the Stimson Center, Slavin argues that the memorandum "resolves none of the complicated disputes between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program, missile arsenal, or support for regional militants who, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish-ruled state." She further suggests that since the U.S. was not at war with Iran prior to Trump’s term, he is "claiming credit for stopping a war he started."
Nate Swanson, a former U.S. official with experience in Iran issues, including the implementation of the 2015 nuclear agreement, stated that this is not a "peace agreement." He explained that the deal codifies a ceasefire and outlines potential avenues for negotiation. "Bilateral relations have not been restored; sanctions have not been lifted, and very little substance has been achieved to date," Swanson noted.
However, Brendan Green, an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati specializing in nuclear strategy and American foreign policy, offers a nuanced perspective. He suggests that if interpreted as an agreement to cease hostilities, Trump has indeed struck such a deal, "at least for the time being." Green acknowledges that many wars have concluded without the restoration of formal diplomatic relations.
"I think it is basically fine to call this a ‘peace deal,’" Green commented. "But the real question is whether it will actually keep the peace past the sixty day negotiating period on other outstanding issues. For that, we will just have to wait and see."
The 2015 Deal Focused on Nuclear Non-Proliferation
The 2015 agreement overseen by President Obama was primarily a nuclear agreement, not a peace accord. Signed by Iran, the United States, China, Russia, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, the deal did not include typical elements of a peace treaty, such as the exchange of ambassadors or provisions addressing Iran’s human rights record.
Miller described it as a "narrow deal on a discrete issue." Under this agreement, Iran committed to foregoing nuclear weapons and allowing continuous monitoring of its compliance in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. The agreement’s provisions were designed to last between 10 and 25 years, with some elements intended to be indefinite. Obama’s administration had hoped for future renegotiations.
Iran agreed to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile by 97% and its centrifuges by 70%. It also pledged to halt plutonium production and dismantle a plutonium reactor. The agreement stipulated that if Iran violated any of these commitments, other signatories would have the authority to reimpose sanctions.
President Trump, who had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate the deal, withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2018 without securing a new one.
PolitiFact Staff Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this article.
RELATED: Trump wrongly claimed a 2015 Obama-era deal granted Iran the right to nuclear weapons.