CIA Director John Ratcliffe briefed President Donald Trump and senior administration officials that US intelligence agencies have gathered evidence casting serious doubt on Iran’s willingness to make the nuclear concessions demanded by Washington, according to multiple international media reports. The warning came in a series of meetings leading up to Trump’s announcement of a memorandum of understanding with Tehran, a preliminary accord intended to pave the way for a comprehensive agreement ending hostilities. The intelligence, drawn from intercepted internal Iranian discussions, indicates that what Iranian officials say among themselves differs markedly from the commitments they convey to American negotiators and mediators.

The revelation has exposed a sharp rift within the Trump administration. Mr Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth all voiced deep reservations during internal deliberations, arguing that the intelligence warranted a more sceptical approach. By contrast, Vice President JD Vance and the president’s special envoys, Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner, urged Trump to proceed with the deal, viewing it as a vital diplomatic opening. After hearing the competing views, the president opted to move forward, but the internal dissent underscores the fragility of the diplomatic track. Viewed from Washington, the episode highlights the enduring tension between the administration’s hawkish security officials and a president eager to claim a foreign policy breakthrough.

The intelligence assessment at the centre of the debate paints a troubling picture of Tehran’s posture. Iranian officials have publicly signalled readiness to curb their nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, yet their private conversations reportedly reveal a different calculus. This discrepancy has led analysts in European capitals to question whether Iran is engaging in tactical delay, buying time while advancing its enrichment capabilities. Russian media, echoing the same reports, note that the CIA’s doubts are shared by other key cabinet members, reinforcing the perception that the deal may rest on shaky foundations. From Tehran, there has been no official response to the intelligence leak, but the regime has historically dismissed such disclosures as psychological warfare.

The memorandum of understanding, described by some as a “digital signing” ahead of a formal ceremony in Geneva, is not a final agreement but a roadmap. The 60-day negotiation period that follows will test whether Iran is prepared to translate its public commitments into verifiable actions. European diplomats, while welcoming any de-escalation, remain wary, recalling the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal after the US withdrawal. The presence of Vice President Vance at the signing signals high-level American commitment, but the internal dissent revealed by the CIA warning suggests that Washington’s patience may be limited. Should Iran fail to offer concrete concessions, the deal could unravel swiftly, potentially returning the two nations to the brink of confrontation.