President Trump emphatically rejected claims that the United States would provide $300bn to Iran as part of a newly signed memorandum of understanding, calling such reports “fake news” and attributing them to “Dumocrat propaganda”. In a series of Truth Social posts, he insisted that for America “it’s all about success, lower oil prices and victory”, urging critics to look at the stock market. The denial capped a week of confusion over the funding mechanism for a post-war reconstruction plan that the White House itself helped design, highlighting the political sensitivity of any perceived financial concession to Tehran after a devastating 40-day conflict.

The memorandum, inked digitally by Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and set for a formal ceremony in Switzerland on 19 June, outlines a sweeping framework to end hostilities and rebuild Iran’s shattered economy. It commits the US and its regional partners to devise a plan worth at least $300bn for “reconstruction and economic development” of the Islamic Republic, with the money sourced not from American taxpayers but from Gulf Cooperation Council states and other willing nations. Washington’s role is limited to issuing sanctions waivers and licences to facilitate the flow of capital, a point Vice President JD Vance underscored by saying Iran would “not receive a cent” from the US and that any disbursement would hinge on “full compliance” and a verifiable change of behaviour by Tehran.

Initial consequences of the deal were visible almost immediately. For the first time since the war’s onset, three Saudi-flagged supertankers carrying some six million barrels of crude transited the Strait of Hormuz, and other vessels loaded near the UAE’s Fujairah port. Brent crude futures slid a further two per cent to below $78 a barrel, a level not seen since the conflict began, even as the shipping and insurance industries urged caution. Industry bodies warned that demining and clarity on sanctions were essential; the return to normalcy in the Gulf would be “long and complex”, according to the Lloyd’s Market Association, with supply chain disruptions taking months to unwind.

Viewed from Washington, the deal exposed Republican divisions. Senator Lindsey Graham called the agreement potentially beneficial, while Senator Ted Cruz labelled it “incredibly foolish” and “utterly indefensible”. Trump responded by branding detractors “envious, bad people or stupid”, extolling the stock market’s record high and reiterating that “Iran can never have a nuclear weapon”. From Tehran’s perspective, state media framed the accord as ending an “imposed war waged by the US and the Israeli regime”, though details of Iran’s compliance – including diluting its uranium stockpile on site under IAEA supervision – set the stage for contentious follow-up talks.

The memorandum launches a 60-day negotiation window to finalise a comprehensive treaty, a period analysts in London see as fraught with risk. While the US has already lifted its maritime blockade and pledged to withdraw forces within 30 days of a final deal, thorny issues remain: the unfreezing of $24bn in Iranian assets, the full delineation of sanctions relief, and whether all regional fronts – notably in Lebanon – can sustain an immediate and permanent ceasefire. The UN Security Council is slated to endorse any final accord, but a durable peace will require bridging the gap between Washington’s insistence on behavioural change and Tehran’s need for reconstruction funds to offset the war’s toll. The Strait of Hormuz may have reopened, but the path to a stable settlement is only just being charted.