The Iran Deal: No Surrender, No $300 Billion Gift, and We Can Still “Bomb the Hell Out of Iran” * The Gateway Pundit * by Antonio Graceffo

www.thegatewaypundit.com
Former President Trump is depicted against a backdrop of the American flag and Iranian symbols, emphasizing controversial statements about military action against Iran.Contrary to internet claims, President Trump did not surrender to Iran and did not hand Iran $300 billion. Under the agreement, Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end its nuclear program. Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hezbollah, however, may nullify the deal, causing hostilities between the United States and Iran to resume.

“We’re going to bomb the hell out of you,” President Trump warned the Iranian regime.

President Trump made the statement at a press conference during the G7 summit in France on June 17, 2026, after a reporter asked whether anything in the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding is enforceable.

Trump answered: “There doesn’t have to be. I let them know. I said, ‘Look, if you don’t adhere to the agreement — I don’t want to do that — but we’re going to bomb the hell out of you.'” He continued: “What else am I going to do? I’m not going to say, ‘I’m going to take you to court,’ … ‘Let me take you to court, let me sue you.’ No, we’re going to bomb the hell out of them if they violate the agreement,” according to a transcript published by The New Republic.

On the question of whether Iran’s pledge not to build a nuclear weapon is permanent, Trump said, “When I say permanently, it should be permanently, but if it’s not permanently, we will bomb them.”

The remarks followed the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran on June 17, brokered primarily by Pakistan with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt facilitating. The document is a memorandum of understanding, not a treaty, and it sets a 60-day window, extendable by mutual consent, for the two sides to negotiate a final deal.

Paragraph 14 of the text, as read to reporters by a senior administration official and published by Axios, states that the final deal “will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution,” meaning the MOU itself is not the binding instrument.

Three claims have circulated about the agreement. The first is that the United States surrendered to Iran. The second is that the U.S. has no way to enforce the terms. The third is that the United States has given Iran billions of dollars. None of these claims are true, however.

On the first claim, the MOU text outlines obligations on both sides, each tied to the other’s compliance. The United States commits to lifting its naval blockade within 30 days of signing and to withdrawing forces from Iran’s proximity within 30 days of a final deal. Iran commits to reaffirming it will not produce or acquire nuclear weapons and to down-blending its stockpile of highly enriched uranium on-site under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, with the schedule to be set in the final deal.

Paragraph 9 of the document states: “Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.” Iran is also required to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic.

The agreement also states that Israel is to end military operations in Lebanon as part of the broader cease-fire.

On the second claim, Trump’s June 17 remarks address the enforcement question directly. Asked whether the deal contains an enforcement mechanism, he stated none exists in the text and said continued willingness to resume military action against Iran is the mechanism. He repeated the line a second time when asked whether Iran’s no-nuclear-weapons pledge is permanent, again citing the threat of bombing rather than a textual enforcement clause as the basis for compliance.

As for the third claim, the MOU does not direct a U.S. payment to Iran. Paragraph 6 states that the United States “undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” with the mechanism for implementation to be finalized within 60 days as part of the final deal. The language ties the plan to regional partners, not to a direct transfer of U.S. funds, and the plan does not yet exist as an operative commitment.

Paragraph 11 addresses a separate category of funds: Iranian assets currently frozen or restricted. It states that the United States “undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran” upon implementation of the MOU, with procedures for release to be agreed upon during negotiations.

This could include approximately $100 billion in frozen assets, but “is not immediate and hinges on future Iranian compliance with the agreement.” These are Iran’s own funds, held in foreign accounts and restricted under sanctions, not new disbursements from the United States.

Paragraph 10 separately states that the U.S. Treasury Department will issue waivers, beginning immediately upon signing, for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, derivatives, and associated services, including banking, insurance, and transportation, with that arrangement remaining in effect until sanctions are terminated under the schedule set in the final deal.

To correct the false claims circulating about the agreement: President Trump has not surrendered to Iran, and the United States has not committed to giving Iran money. The agreement itself is non-binding, with the only enforcement mechanism being that the United States can bomb Iran, while Iran has no comparable means of compelling U.S. compliance.

Separate from any debate over whether the deal is favorable or unfavorable to the United States, Israel’s resumption of hostilities with Hezbollah in Lebanon is already, under the terms of the MOU itself, grounds for Iran to declare the agreement broken. If Iran resumes its attacks in response, the United States has indicated that it will resume military action as well, which would render the debate over the deal’s merits moot.

Ad block users: Some site features may not work correctly while an ad blocker is enabled, because they break scripts and content this website depends on. If you can't see comments below, for example, please disable your ad blocker.