A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between Iran and the United States on June 17. However, the debate between the two nations regarding the published document of the MOU has not yet subsided. After the document faced criticism for being overly favorable to Iran, the administration of US President Donald Trump has claimed that Tehran agreed to make several other significant concessions during the ongoing negotiations.

The problem, however, is that none of these promises are mentioned in the MOU, and Iran has consistently denied them.
This raises the question: whom should one believe? Iran, or a Trump administration whose credibility has long been a subject of debate?

Dispute over nuclear inspections
On Tuesday morning, Trump claimed that Iran had agreed to the highest level of nuclear inspections for an indefinite period in the future. Writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, he stated that Iran had agreed—fully and unconditionally—to the highest level of nuclear inspections for the long term (in perpetuity). He asserted that this would ensure “nuclear integrity” and noted that without such an agreement, no further talks would have taken place.
Earlier, on Monday, US Vice President JD Vance had also described this as a “major milestone” during a press conference in Switzerland, stating that Iran had agreed to grant access to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

However, Iran has flatly rejected this claim. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stated that cooperation with the IAEA would continue “according to current procedures.” He denied any agreement to grant inspectors access to damaged nuclear facilities or any new commitments.

According to experts, the IAEA already possesses limited access within Iran; therefore, merely granting the agency access does not constitute a major breakthrough.
Yet, Trump has not budged from his position. On Tuesday afternoon, he told reporters, “They are wrong. We have confirmation regarding 100 percent inspection. If Iran is right [about their denial], then I will call off the talks immediately.” Will the unfrozen Iranian assets be used solely to purchase US goods?

The Trump administration further claims that the hundreds of billions of dollars in Iranian assets—set to be unfrozen as part of the peace deal—will be used exclusively to purchase US agricultural products and humanitarian supplies.

Critics fear that Iran might use these funds to rebuild its military capabilities or finance allied groups in the region. Even many conservative US politicians have criticized the provision of such significant financial benefits to Iran under the agreement.
JD Vance stated that lead negotiator Jared Kushner devised a plan wherein the United States and Qatar would authorize the expenditure of the funds. According to him, the money would be used to purchase US soybeans, corn, and wheat, thereby benefiting the Iranian people.
US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz also stated that they would purchase American agricultural products. Trump similarly claimed that the funds would remain under US control and be used solely for purchasing food and medical equipment from the United States.

However, in a later interview, Waltz admitted that the mechanism for controlling these funds is still under discussion.
On the other hand, Iran’s Ambassador to the UN, Ali Bahreini, rejected this claim, asserting that Iran alone would determine how to utilize its own assets. He dismissed any suggestion that other nations could exert influence over this matter.

Disagreement over toll-free passage through the Strait of Hormuz
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) stipulates that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most vital energy routes—will be permitted free of charge for a period of 60 days.
However, the two sides hold differing views on what will happen thereafter.
At the G7 summit held in France last week, Trump stated that the strait would remain toll-free permanently. He remarked, “Some say it is toll-free only for a limited time. No, it will be toll-free permanently.”

He reiterated this claim on Monday, stating, “We have an agreement ensuring it remains open and no tolls are charged.”
Iran, however, has made no such commitment. Instead, it has announced plans to levy fees for specific services. Various reports indicate that Tehran has already begun preparations to implement this plan. The matter remains so unresolved that Trump recently threatened that, if necessary, the United States would seize control of the strait and collect shipping fees itself.

Who can be trusted?
Generally, the U.S. position is considered more credible than the statements of an authoritarian state like Iran. However, the Trump administration’s past record has complicated that assessment.

For several months, Trump repeatedly claimed that a deal with Iran was “almost done” and that Tehran had accepted all his conditions. In reality, however, that did not happen.
Furthermore, following an attack on an Iranian nuclear facility last year, the Trump administration claimed that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely destroyed.” Yet, initial assessments by U.S. intelligence agencies did not support that claim.

In the current context as well, Trump had previously denied that the agreement would include a $300 billion reconstruction fund financed by Gulf nations; however, the subsequently released Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) revealed the existence of such a fund.
White House officials had dismissed the draft MoU published in Iranian media as mere “propaganda,” yet significant similarities were found between that draft and the final document released later.

Analysts argue that if the major concessions claimed by the U.S. were indeed firmly secured, the reason for their omission from the explicit terms of the MoU remains unclear.

The Trump administration maintains that certain matters were not made public due to Iran’s internal political realities, and that some understandings remain confidential. Critics, however, point out that the domestic political climate in the U.S. is also highly sensitive, suggesting that “trust us” style explanations may not suffice to satisfy public opinion.