President Donald Trump signed a ceasefire and nuclear framework with Iran last week, saying it ended the war, reopened the Strait of Hormuz and spared the global economy from a wider shock. Vice President JD Vance spent the days that followed making the political case for the deal: that Trump had secured what Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement had not.
The framework, a 14-point memorandum of understanding signed at Versailles on June 17, extends a 60-day ceasefire, lifts the U.S. naval blockade and opens talks over Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief. The White House cast the agreement as the product of “decisive American strength,” saying it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to free navigation, block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon and reject what it called “the failed policies of appeasement, cash payoffs, and endless wars.”
Speaking to reporters at the Group of Seven summit on Wednesday, Trump defended the tentative agreement in economic terms, invoking Herbert Hoover and warning that the alternative could have been a worldwide depression.
Hoover, the president associated with the onset of the Great Depression, was the one President Trump said he “did not want to be.”
“Every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship,” Trump said. He also warned that further military operations would have kept the Strait of Hormuz closed because of underwater mines.
Administration officials said the agreement would end Iran’s ability to pose a nuclear threat “not just presently, not just while Donald Trump is in office, but for the long haul.” Trump was direct with critics on Truth Social. Those who said he had not been tough enough on Iran, he told one press conference, were “stupid people.” And in an interview with Axios, he called the deal “Iran’s unconditional surrender.”
Republican senators lined up behind the deal. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) said on Fox News, “where President Obama paid Iran for their nuclear program, President Trump is making them pay to end it.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in a post on X that “those attacking the President for making peace are the same people who want endless wars. We should stand with him on a peace deal.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who had earlier pressed for tougher terms, said he saw “little downside to trying” and called the MOU “beneficial and an essential step” toward broader stability in the Middle East, including eventual Saudi-Israeli normalization.
The deal drew broad international endorsement. G7 leaders called it a “historic opportunity” secured under Trump’s “strong leadership.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it “hugely important.” French President Emmanuel Macron said it “paves the way for lasting peace.” Even Pope Leo XIV welcomed it “with satisfaction” as “an encouraging result of patient work in dialogue and negotiation.”
Vance’s Three Arguments
Vance carried the detailed defense of the MOU on three tracks. His central argument on Fox News was a sharp contrast with the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under Obama, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). “The Obama nuclear deal allowed enrichment,” Vance said. “Ours will not. The Obama deal allowed the accumulation of stockpiled weapons-grade material. Ours is actually leading to the destruction of that stockpile. The Obama deal gave them over a billion dollars of American money. The deal gives them $0 of American money.”
Vance pointed to immediate economic results as proof that the deal was already working. He cited the flow of 12.5 million barrels of oil through the Strait of Hormuz overnight as evidence that the agreement was “already yielding tangible results” for American consumers. On compliance, his argument was conditionality. “The deal includes various benefits if they fulfill those commitments,” he told CNBC, “but it offers nothing if they fail to uphold their promises.” The $300 billion reconstruction fund pledged under the agreement, he said, would come entirely from Gulf partners, “not one dollar of American taxpayer money.”
Vance reserved his sharpest language for Israel. On June 18, he publicly warned Israeli cabinet members: “If I were part of the Israeli government, I might reconsider attacking the only significant ally I have left in the world.” He said the stance of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was “detached from reality and harmful to Israel’s own interests.”
Lebanon: From a Separate Track to Three Mentions
When the MoU was first being negotiated, Lebanon was on a separate track, distinct from the U.S.-Iran negotiations. Many Lebanese and regional officials argued it should stay that way, and that bundling Lebanon into a U.S.-Iran framework would strip Beirut of its negotiating standing and hand Tehran leverage over a file it had no business owning.
That position shifted. The final MoU text mentions Lebanon three times, including a call for “immediate and permanent cessation of military operations across all fronts, including Lebanon.” Then Trump and Vance began speaking more directly about Lebanon.
The practical consequence became visible on Monday, June 22. Vance spoke by phone with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, joined by senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner and Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani. According to MBN’s sources, the call focused on consolidating the ceasefire in Lebanon, halting Israeli military escalation, and exploring the possible establishment of a dedicated deconfliction mechanism, a proposal that emerged from the U.S.-Iran talks in Switzerland and was announced in a joint statement by mediators Qatar and Pakistan.
A Lebanese official familiar with the discussions told MBN that Aoun expressed preliminary support for the proposal. The president agreed to the idea in principle, provided it leads to a sustainable ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. Aoun briefed Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on the contents of the call.
Lebanon has welcomed the deconfliction proposal but stated its condition clearly: any such mechanism must lead to a lasting ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory. A Lebanese official stressed that discussions held in Switzerland do not conflict with the fifth round of direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations set to begin Tuesday, June 23, at the U.S. State Department, which are expected to focus on post-ceasefire arrangements and Israeli withdrawal from the south, and how to implement the “pilot zones,” which are newly proposed trial geographic areas where the Lebanese national military will take exclusive control. Under this framework, the trial zones serve as a security test, forcing the withdrawal of non-state armed groups.
Jerusalem’s Reaction
The reaction in Israel was swift and pointed. Ben-Gvir said Israel was “not a banana republic” and declared the agreement did not bind Israel “in any way.” Smotrich called it “bad for Israel and the entire free world.” Opposition leader Yair Lapid called it “one of the most shocking failures in Israel’s security and foreign policy history.” Former Defense Minister Benny Gantz said the deal was “a strategic failure that will require Israel to engage in diplomatic, military, and legal struggles in the coming years.”
Netanyahu stayed publicly measured. “Sometimes, as in any close family, we have these tactical disagreements,” he told CNBC. He added that Israel would remain in southern Lebanon “as long as necessary,” a direct contradiction of the MOU’s Lebanon language.
Iran has argued that Israel’s refusal to comply with the Lebanon provisions amounts to a U.S. compliance failure, raising early questions about the durability of the broader accord. A fragile Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire was brokered on June 19 by the United States, Qatar and Iran. Israeli forces, however, remain in the “security zone.”
The MoU leaves some of Israel’s central demands outside the text. It contains no mention of ballistic missiles, no reference to Hezbollah’s disarmament and no full verification mechanism. Trump told reporters it would be “unfair” to deny Iran ballistic missiles when other regional powers have them. Netanyahu, by contrast, had set a 300-kilometer range cap as a red line, using the Missile Technology Control Regime as a benchmark. For Israel, those gaps are central. For Washington, they are not enough to derail the deal.
What Comes Next
The next test comes on two tracks. The fifth round of Israel-Lebanon talks is set to begin June 23 in Washington, while negotiations with Iran continue in Switzerland under the 60-day framework. Iran’s technical team remained at the Burgenstock resort after the first high-level session ended Sunday, a sign that the process was moving from political announcement to detailed bargaining. Mediators from Qatar and Pakistan described the opening round as “constructive and optimistic.”
The talks have also produced a High-Level Committee to oversee political mediation and a maritime communication link intended to prevent accidents in the Strait of Hormuz.
Lebanon now sits at the center of both tracks: the U.S.-Iran framework in Switzerland and the direct Israel-Lebanon negotiations in Washington. Whether Beirut can close the gap between the commitments it signs and the ground it controls is the question the June 23 round in Washington will begin to answer.
