▲ U.S. President Donald Trump
With the United States and Iran signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war, controversy is mounting over a reported $300 billion (453 trillion won) reconstruction fund for Iran.
This is because it could look as though other countries are footing the bill for a massive fund that essentially acts as war reparations, even though the U.S. was the one that fought the war.
Domestic criticism is also growing against President Donald Trump, who has fiercely slammed the Barack Obama administration for handing over "pallets of cash" to Iran, for now allowing massive financial support to Tehran without any clear denuclearization achievements.
According to foreign media reports, including Reuters, the MOU agreement between the U.S. and Iran reportedly includes provisions to establish a $300 billion private fund that Iran can access.
Citing sources, Reuters reported that more than half of the total fund has already been committed, mentioning companies from South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, and the U.S.
Vice President JD Vance also made remarks that seemed to acknowledge the existence of the $300 billion fund.
President Trump has maintained that no U.S. taxpayer money is being used.
Because calling it "reparations" or a "reconstruction fund" could give the impression that the U.S. lost the war, the Trump administration appears to be trying to frame it as a private investment fund.
However, from Iran's perspective, there is a high likelihood it will be perceived as war reparations.
Since the outbreak of the war, Iran had consistently demanded reparations for war damages during negotiations, and it appears the two sides may have ultimately found a compromise in the form of a private fund.
Even if the "label" of the fund is up for negotiation, critics point out that the fund is being raised primarily by U.S. allies, including the Gulf states, which remains a key issue.
Critics argue that the U.S. started the war with Iran without consulting its allies, and is now pressuring those same allies to raise a fund that strongly resembles war reparations.
Given President Trump's tendency to retaliate against those who do not comply with his demands, it is difficult to view these countries' participation in the fund as entirely voluntary.
This is virtually identical to Trump's logic early in the war in March, when Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz and he urged other countries to send warships to help reopen the strait.
At the time, critics also pointed out that the U.S. had caused the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz by starting the war, yet was trying to shift the responsibility for resolving the crisis onto others.
Within the U.S., concerns are mounting that the Trump administration is offering "giveaway-style" compensation before securing any concrete progress on Iran's denuclearization.
While President Trump repeatedly boasts that Iran has agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, neither the U.S. public nor the international community seems to believe this will translate into actual action yet.
Iran's genuine commitment to denuclearization can only be gauged through concrete actions, such as the disposal of highly enriched uranium, a freeze on enrichment, the dismantling of nuclear facilities, and the acceptance of international inspections. However, the nuclear negotiations to discuss these details will only begin after the MOU signing ceremony.
This has led to harsh assessments that President Trump has essentially gained nothing but the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—which was already open before the war—and Iran's verbal promise that it "will not acquire nuclear weapons."
The Trump administration maintains that it cannot unfreeze Iran's frozen assets simply as a reward for signing the MOU.
Iran, on the other hand, counters that some of its frozen assets must be released before it will enter subsequent negotiations.
The Trump administration insists that any sanctions relief for Iran can only happen on an "action-for-action" basis, aligned with the scope and implementation of Iran's nuclear abandonment.
However, U.S. media reports indicate that the U.S. will waive existing sanctions to allow Iran to sell oil during the 60-day nuclear negotiation period following the MOU.
If true, this move directly contradicts the Trump administration's claim that sanctions relief is strictly tied to nuclear abandonment.
It also gives the impression of being linked to Iran's agreement not to charge transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days.
While this could be a U.S. trust-building effort and a "carrot" to elicit maximum nuclear concessions during the negotiation period, it is expected to face significant domestic backlash for loosening the financial squeeze on Iran.
In particular, President Trump, who has fiercely criticized the Obama administration for handing over cash to Iran, will inevitably face the exact same criticism.
Although the Trump administration emphasizes that "no U.S. money is being injected," strictly speaking, the funds released during the Obama administration were also either Iran's own frozen assets or payments the U.S. originally owed Iran for military equipment.
CNN pointed out that during the 2015 Iran nuclear deal under the Obama administration, the frozen assets released amounted to about $50 billion, though Trump has repeatedly claimed that $150 billion was handed over to Iran. Now, the Trump administration is discussing a much larger sum of $300 billion to support Iran.
Furthermore, there is a strong sentiment among Republican hardliners in the U.S. that "no matter whose money it is, the financial lifeline of the terrorist state Iran must not be released."
While President Trump emphasizes that "no U.S. money is flowing," critics point out that the very purpose of sanctions on Iran was to cut off the funds Tehran would use to develop nuclear weapons or support terrorist groups. From this perspective, whether the money Iran receives is U.S. taxpayer money or not is beside the point.
Marc Thiessen, known as an advisor to President Trump, criticized the move, saying, "Giving $300 billion to Iran under any circumstances is a disaster," and comparing it to "offering a Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany while the Nazis are in power."
In effect, President Trump's fierce criticism of Obama's Iran nuclear deal is now coming back to haunt him like a boomerang.
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.