If it doesn't get done in 60 days, it's all right. We go back to bombing.
At the G7 summit in France, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding that reopens the Strait of Hormuz and establishes a ceasefire — a moment President Trump declared a historic victory against nuclear proliferation. Yet the text of the agreement tells a quieter, more uncertain story: Iran has committed only to downblending enriched uranium under international supervision, not to abandoning its nuclear ambitions, and the two nations have given themselves just 60 days to resolve questions that have defied diplomacy for decades. History reminds us that the distance between a signed page and a lasting peace is often where the hardest work begins.
- Trump declared a sweeping nuclear victory at the G7, but the actual memorandum commits Iran only to diluting uranium stockpiles — not to permanently surrendering its weapons program.
- A $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran sits in deliberate ambiguity, leaving open the possibility of American payments that would directly contradict Trump's own campaign promises.
- Senator Bill Cassidy called the deal 'the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,' warning that Iran has now learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz is an effective negotiating weapon.
- Iran's missile program and its funding of proxy forces like Hezbollah — both cited as top priorities when the conflict began — receive almost no meaningful treatment in the one-and-a-half-page document.
- Negotiators have 60 days to achieve what took the Obama administration 20 months, and Trump himself acknowledged the fragility of the moment: 'If it doesn't get done in 60 days, we go back to bombing.'
President Trump stood before reporters at the G7 summit in France and declared a major victory — a deal, he said, that would prevent Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons. Both governments confirmed the memorandum of understanding had been signed and was in effect. But the actual text, released in a subsequent briefing with journalists, reveals something far narrower than the triumphant framing suggested.
What the two sides have agreed to is a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a ceasefire. On the nuclear question, Iran has committed only to 'downblending' its stockpile of highly enriched uranium under IAEA supervision — with the technical details and timeline entirely unresolved. Rather than a final settlement, the agreement creates a 60-day window for negotiators to reach a comprehensive deal, a compressed timeline given that the original 2015 Iran nuclear agreement took 20 months to conclude.
A proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund adds another layer of ambiguity. US officials insist the language commits Washington to paying nothing, yet the text is opaque enough to leave the door open for eventual American contributions — a political vulnerability for a president who campaigned against foreign aid and once condemned the Obama administration's $1.7 billion payment to Tehran as weakness.
Criticism arrived quickly, including from within Trump's own party. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy called it 'the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,' arguing that Iran's nuclear ambitions remained unconstrained and that Tehran had learned threatening the Strait of Hormuz delivers results. Congressional members are demanding briefings.
The memorandum's silences are as telling as its commitments. Iran's missile program and its support for regional proxies like Hezbollah — both flagged as essential concerns at the conflict's outset — receive almost no attention in the one-and-a-half-page document. The ceasefire nominally extends to Hezbollah, but whether Iran will face real pressure to sever those ties in the next round of talks remains entirely open.
When asked about the 60-day deadline, Trump himself sounded uncertain. 'If it doesn't get done in 60 days, it's all right,' he said. 'We go back to bombing.' The remark captured the fragile nature of what has been achieved: not a resolution, but a temporary opening — with the shadow of renewed conflict still close at hand.
President Trump stood before reporters at the G7 summit in France on Wednesday and declared victory. The United States and Iran had reached a deal, he said—a major win that would prevent Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons. Both countries confirmed the memorandum of understanding had been signed electronically and was now in effect. But the actual text of the agreement, released by US officials in a subsequent call with journalists, tells a more complicated story.
What the two countries have actually agreed to is far narrower than Trump's public framing suggests. The deal reopens the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping channel that had been a flashpoint in the conflict, and establishes a ceasefire. But on the central question of Iran's nuclear program, the agreement commits Iran only to "downblending" its stockpile of highly enriched uranium under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The technical details of how this would happen, and on what timeline, remain entirely unresolved. Instead of a final settlement, what exists now is a 60-day window for negotiators to hammer out a comprehensive agreement—a remarkably tight deadline given that the Obama administration took 20 months to reach the original Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
The reconstruction fund presents another layer of ambiguity. According to the text, the US will work "with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion" for Iran's reconstruction. A senior US official insisted during the briefing that this commits the US to paying Iran nothing. Yet the language of the agreement itself is opaque enough to leave the door open for eventual American payments as part of a broader settlement. This creates a political vulnerability for Trump, who campaigned against foreign aid and has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration's $1.7 billion payment to Iran in 2016 as evidence of weakness. His anti-interventionist base, which opposed what it saw as endless foreign wars, may view any reconstruction payments to Iran as a betrayal of that promise, regardless of whether the money comes directly from Washington or through regional partners.
Criticism has already surfaced, including from within Trump's own party. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican who recently lost a primary challenge to a Trump-backed candidate, called the deal "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades." He argued that Iran's nuclear ambitions were not meaningfully constrained and that Tehran had learned a valuable lesson: threatening the Strait of Hormuz works. Congressional lawmakers are demanding briefings on the agreement and the uncertainties it carries.
Several major issues receive minimal treatment in the one-and-a-half-page memorandum. When the conflict began, Trump identified preventing Iran from funding proxy groups like Hezbollah as a top priority—a concern shared by Israel, which joined the US in launching the war and has waged its own conflict with the Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon. The ceasefire extends to Hezbollah, but the group barely appears elsewhere in the text, and it remains unclear whether Iran will face pressure to cut off support for Hezbollah and other regional proxies in the next round of talks. Iran's missile program, another issue Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flagged as essential at the war's outset, also receives scant attention.
The agreement sets a 60-day deadline for reaching a final comprehensive deal, though it allows for extensions if necessary. That flexibility may itself signal doubt about whether the two sides can bridge their differences in such a compressed timeframe. When asked about the prospects, Trump sounded uncertain. "If it doesn't get done in 60 days, it's all right," he said. "We go back to bombing." The remark underscored the fragility of what has been achieved: a temporary opening, not a resolution, with the threat of renewed conflict lurking beneath the surface.
Citações Notáveis
Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.— Senator Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana)
If it doesn't get done in 60 days, it's all right. We go back to bombing.— President Trump
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
So Trump says this deal stops Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Does it actually do that?
Not yet. Right now Iran is only agreeing to downblend its uranium stockpile—reduce it, make it less enriched—under international inspection. But all the hard details about how that happens, and whether Iran gives up nuclear weapons permanently, that's supposed to get worked out in the next 60 days.
Sixty days? That seems rushed.
It is. The original Iran nuclear deal took 20 months to negotiate. Trump's team is trying to do something comparable in two months. There's a lot of skepticism about whether that's realistic.
What about the $300 billion for reconstruction?
That's where it gets murky. The agreement says the US will work with regional partners to develop a plan for $300 billion in Iranian reconstruction. But it doesn't clearly say whether America actually has to pay any of it. A US official said the US isn't committing a cent, but the text itself is vague enough that it could be interpreted differently.
Why does that matter politically?
Trump campaigned against foreign aid and criticized Obama for paying Iran $1.7 billion. His base doesn't want to see money going to Iran. If reconstruction payments happen, even through regional partners, it could look like Trump broke his promise.
What about the other issues—the missile program, the proxy groups?
Barely mentioned. Hezbollah gets a ceasefire but almost nothing else in the agreement. Iran's missiles aren't addressed in detail. Those are supposed to be part of the final deal, but there's no guarantee they'll be resolved in 60 days.