Sharp Divisions Within Trump Administration Over Iran Nuclear Deal

Sources familiar with the matter have disclosed disagreements within President Donald Trump’s administration concerning the memorandum of understanding signed with Iran, following intelligence evaluations that raised doubts about Tehran’s readiness to offer the nuclear concessions Washington seeks to include in any final agreement.

According to these sources, CIA Director John Ratcliffe informed President Trump and several senior officials that intelligence gathered by agencies raises serious questions about Iran’s true intentions in the upcoming negotiation phase.

Concerns were not limited to Ratcliffe alone; during internal discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also expressed similar worries regarding the announced understanding with Tehran. Conversely, Vice President J.D. Vance and U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner supported proceeding with the agreement and continuing negotiations.

Before announcing the memorandum, Trump held a series of high-level meetings in which officials reviewed intelligence reports indicating discrepancies between what Iranian officials discussed internally and what they conveyed to intermediaries and the American side.

During these meetings, Ratcliffe and Rubio viewed the available data as raising doubts about Tehran’s willingness to accept the nuclear measures demanded by Washington. One source stated that intelligence assessments point to a gap between Iran’s internal discussions and its commitments under the agreement.

In response, the White House defended the memorandum, emphasizing that the president considered all viewpoints before making his decision.

An administration official said that Trump “listens to all perspectives but is the final decision-maker,” adding that the memorandum meets the red lines Washington has set for years, primarily preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or maintaining stocks of highly enriched uranium, as well as stopping it from using international maritime routes as leverage.

The nuclear provisions in the memorandum depend on both parties reaching a more detailed agreement within a 60-day negotiation period, which can be extended with mutual consent.

Vice President J.D. Vance and envoys Witkoff and Kushner are expected to meet on Friday with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with mediators from Qatar and Pakistan present, to discuss the next phase of negotiations.

Although the full text of the initial 14-point agreement has not been published, an informed source indicated that Iran might gain greater benefits than currently provided in the memorandum unless a final agreement is later reached that fulfills U.S. objectives concerning the nuclear program.

The memorandum stipulates maintaining the existing status of Iran’s nuclear program during negotiations, while the United States refrains from imposing new sanctions or deploying additional forces to the region.

It also includes a mutual commitment to discuss the future of enrichment activities and stocks of enriched nuclear materials within the framework of a final settlement. If a comprehensive deal is achieved, Washington will begin lifting sanctions according to an agreed schedule and withdraw forces deployed during the conflict period.

The issue of Iran’s frozen assets is among the most sensitive topics, with the memorandum allowing access to these funds upon implementation of the agreement. However, U.S. officials confirmed that any release of assets will follow a “performance for reward” principle, linking access to the extent of Iran’s on-the-ground actions.

The document also calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz in the near term, with Iran pledging to ensure safe passage for commercial vessels for 60 days without fees, in exchange for gradual easing of U.S. restrictions on navigation.

Critics within the U.S. administration argue that Iran could exploit the benefits granted by the current memorandum without subsequently offering the nuclear concessions Washington demands. Meanwhile, U.S. officials maintain that any economic or financial advantages Iran receives will be contingent on verifiable steps, noting that the coming weeks will reveal Tehran’s seriousness in fulfilling its commitments.

These internal disagreements demonstrate that the memorandum has not resolved the debate within the Trump administration over how to handle Iran but has instead initiated a new discussion about whether Tehran is genuinely prepared to make substantial concessions or is seeking to buy time and secure economic and political gains before addressing the most sensitive nuclear issues.