Washington, D.C. — The recently concluded agreement aimed at ending the conflict between the United States and Iran is being celebrated by President Donald Trump and his supporters as a major strategic victory. However, significant questions remain over the substance of the deal, as its key provisions have yet to be publicly disclosed.

As the two sides prepare to sign a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MoU) on Friday, uncertainty persists regarding the commitments contained within the agreement and whether contentious issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme will be addressed immediately or deferred to future negotiations.

Republican leaders have welcomed the breakthrough. US Vice President JD Vance described the agreement as the beginning of a “new era” for the Middle East, pointing to the decline in global oil prices following the announcement.

“The President’s actions have created a genuine opportunity to transform the region,” Vance said in an interview with Fox News. “I believe we can confidently say that Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also praised the agreement, linking the development to Trump’s 80th birthday celebrations. In a post on social media platform X, Rubio said the United States was fortunate to have a leader with “extraordinary courage, remarkable strength, unique humour, and an unparalleled love for the country.”

Several Republican lawmakers echoed similar sentiments, describing Trump as a “deal-maker in chief.”

Congressman Robert Aderholt argued that the new agreement would impose stricter limitations on Iran’s nuclear activities than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear accord negotiated under former President Barack Obama. Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018.

According to Aderholt, unlike the Obama-era agreement, the new framework would prevent Iran from continuing uranium enrichment and from accumulating components necessary for developing nuclear weapons.

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is intended solely for peaceful purposes and that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Issues Left Unresolved

Despite such claims from Republican officials, there is little indication that Iran’s nuclear programme will be directly addressed in the initial agreement.

Officials from both sides have stated that the preliminary deal is primarily designed to halt hostilities across multiple fronts, including Lebanon. American, Pakistani and Iranian officials have also indicated that the agreement is expected to facilitate the reopening of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and lead to the lifting of the US naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports.

Iranian authorities, however, have repeatedly emphasised that the agreement is merely a starting point for a 60-day negotiation process. Those discussions are expected to address more complex issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme and long-term arrangements governing the Strait of Hormuz.

The two sides have also presented differing interpretations regarding the timing of sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets. US officials maintain that such measures will only be considered after Iran fulfils specific commitments outlined in the agreement.

Even prominent Iran hawk Senator Lindsey Graham acknowledged concerns about differing interpretations of the deal.

“I am somewhat concerned because Iran’s understanding of the agreement appears to differ from what the American negotiating team has described,” Graham wrote on X.

Democrats Demand Greater Transparency

Democratic lawmakers have continued to question whether the conflict, which began on 28 February with US and Israeli military operations against Iran, advanced American national interests.

The Trump administration has consistently argued that the war aimed to weaken Iran’s military capabilities and dismantle its nuclear programme. Senior administration officials also expressed hope that military pressure could contribute to regime change in Tehran. However, such an outcome has not materialised.

Analysts suggest that despite the deaths of numerous senior Iranian officials, including key military commanders, Iran’s ruling establishment has remained intact. Reports indicate that Mojtaba Khamenei, son of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has assumed a more prominent leadership role within the political system.

Speaking to NS Now, Congressman Seth Moulton criticised the agreement, describing it as “effectively a document of surrender from Donald Trump to Iran’s Supreme Leader.”

“We have already spent approximately $100 billion of taxpayer money, lost 14 American lives, and what have we achieved?” Moulton said. “The Strait of Hormuz is being reopened, but it was open before the war began. How can that be considered a victory?”

Representative Gregory Meeks, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also criticised what he described as Trump’s “war of choice,” calling it damaging to US interests. Nevertheless, he welcomed the renewed emphasis on diplomacy.

“The American people deserve more than vague announcements and political rhetoric,” Meeks said in a statement. “They deserve security, clear answers, and confidence that this administration will not repeat the failures that led the nation into an unauthorised and costly conflict.”

Concerns Over Future Conflict

Former US diplomat Robert Malley, who played a leading role in negotiations surrounding the JCPOA, described the upcoming agreement as a significant and welcome achievement because it is expected to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

However, he argued that the agreement also serves as an implicit acknowledgement of the costs of the war itself.

“The primary accomplishment is reopening a waterway that was closed only because of the conflict,” Malley wrote on X.

He warned that the most difficult issues—including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, the disposition of its enriched uranium stockpile, and the scope of sanctions relief—have effectively been postponed.

“These issues were difficult before the war,” he noted. “They are now likely to be even more challenging to resolve.”

A similar assessment was offered by Sina Toossi, who argued that many of the strongest advocates of military action would have been surprised by the eventual outcome.

“There has been no regime change, and Iran has not capitulated to many of the maximalist demands placed upon it,” Toossi wrote. “For supporters of the war, this represents a far less favourable outcome than they had anticipated.”

Meanwhile, the economic costs of the conflict have weighed heavily on Trump’s approval ratings. Although falling oil prices have provided some political relief, it remains uncertain whether public perceptions of the war will improve.

The 60-day negotiation period is scheduled to conclude in August, just as the United States enters the final stretch before the November midterm elections.

In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, Trump warned that military action against Iran could resume if a comprehensive nuclear agreement is not reached by then. He also suggested that the United States could serve as a long-term security guarantor for the region if regional governments contributed a portion of their revenues towards such an arrangement.

The coming weeks are therefore expected to determine whether the preliminary agreement evolves into a lasting diplomatic settlement or merely serves as a temporary pause in a conflict whose underlying disputes remain unresolved.