Dem
47
GOP
53
Donald Trump completely failed in beating Iran into submission, so his Plan B is to beat J.D. Vance into submission. That should be easier. Trump forced Vance to make a deal and the only deal the Iranians would accept is complete surrender by the U.S. Now Trump is making it worse for Vance by making him go around defending the indefensible on television. Vance found a way, though: Just lie about every single word, sentence, paragraph, and article in the MOU. After all, how many 2028 Republican primary voters in 2028 are going to remember how much he lied in 2026? Hell, most of them won't even know in 2026 that everything he says is an outright lie. Not an exaggeration, not a bit of hyperbole here and there, but outright lies about everything.
Want proof? Glad you asked. Will Saletan of The Bulwark made a podcast about this. Here it is:
In it, Saletan shows clip after clip of Vance saying something about the MOU and then puts the actual text of the MOU on the screen. In set theory, what Vance says and what the MOU says would be described as disjoint sets.
Here are some examples. When an NBC reporter asked: "Will nuclear inspectors be allowed back in?" Vance said: "Yes, absolutely. That's in fact one of the core parts of the agreement is that the IAEA and the United States are going to help Iran destroy the highly enriched stockpile and that's something that is spelled out very clearly in the MOU." Here is the relevant part of Article 8 of the MOU.
The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon, in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph 7, with the minimum methodology to be downblending on-site, under the supervision of the IAEA. The two Parties also agree to discuss the issue of enrichment, and other mutually agreed matters relating to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final Deal. (Our emphasis 2x).
The careful reader will notice that all Iran has agreed to is downblending some of its enriched uranium, which it will keep on-site after downblending. So what does "downblending" mean? Downblending means adding some nonfissile material to the fissile material. No percentages are spelled out here, so technically downblending by 10% fulfills the requirements of the MOU. Downblending can be easily reversed later—and remember, Iran gets to keep the uranium. Vance used the word "destroy." Reversible downblending is not destroying. It is not even close.
Vance later told CBS that Iran will "allow a real inspections regime." As you can see, there is nothing about a real inspections regime in there. Just a one-time downblending. As soon as the IAEA officials leave, Iran can immediately begin enriching again with no inspections from anyone. All Trump cares about is that Iran does not successfully test a nuclear weapon before Jan. 20, 2029. If something goes boom after that, it is not his problem. Vance might just want to think about this a bit more carefully.
At 4:40 in the video, Vance tells CNN's Jake Tapper "What paragraph one of the agreement says is effectively that Iran commits itself, just as the United States commits itself, to regional peace and stability. Part of that, Jake, is that the Iranians have to stop funding violent terrorist organizations." Here is the main part of paragraph one:
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
Do you see anything in there about not funding terrorism? We don't. It talks about military operations. Military operations are operations carried out by armies, navies, and air forces. Iran doesn't have any of these anymore, so the only party limited here is the U.S. Proxies, which Iran uses, are not mentioned. What Vance told Tapper is an out-and-out lie. Iran has not agreed to stop funding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other such groups.
At 5:54, a CNBC reporter asks Vance if Iran has agreed to not levy tolls on ships using the Strait of Hormuz beyond the 60-day negotiating period. He said: "Well, our expectation is that the Strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for the long term." Here is paragraph 5:
Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. (Our emphasis.)
It may be Vance's expectation that there will be no tolls after 60 days, but that sure isn't what is in there. In fact, Iran has basically promised to discuss "future administration and services in the Strait of Hormuz" with Oman. The Strait is international waters. Iran and Oman have no more right under international law to set up (almost certainly mandatory) maritime services than the U.S. has to set up mandatory tolls or fees on the Atlantic Ocean. We can't tell if Vance lied here. If he genuinely expects Iran to forever forsake tolls, then technically he is telling the truth. But he is smart enough to know Iran is not going to forsake tolls, otherwise why would discussions with Oman be relevant? If he understands that, then he is lying. At the very best, he is being extremely misleading.
We could go on, but if you would like to see Vance lie more, just watch the whole video. It is only 12½ minutes. He is subtle—or, at least, more subtle than Trump—but lie he does.
Vance is in a terrible bind now. When the 60 days are up, mostly likely Iran won't agree to anything other than a one-time minor downblending of that portion of its enriched uranium that it chooses to show the IAEA inspectors. Democrats are going to have a field day with this and claim Trump lost the war, Vance lost the peace, your energy prices are up as a result, and the world is a more dangerous place now on account of the botched war and botched peace.
So one thing we have learned now is that Vance is prepared to indulge in full bore, out-and-out lying about written documents that clearly show he is lying. What does that say about his veracity about things that can't be so easily proven—not only now, but also in 2028? If things really go south in 60 days and Vance gets a reputation among independents as a lying weasel, that will come back to bite him in the 2028 general election—well, if he gets the GOP nomination, which is by no means a sure thing. (V)