The euphoria surrounding the announcement of a preliminary peace deal between the United States and Iran has been swiftly undercut by a sobering reality: deep within the Trump administration, the intelligence community harbors serious doubts about Tehran’s willingness to make the nuclear concessions Washington is demanding. According to an Axios report published on June 16, CIA Director John Ratcliffe has told President Donald Trump and other senior officials that evidence gathered by US intelligence agencies casts doubt on Iran's intentions regarding a final nuclear agreement.
This internal skepticism, which reportedly includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, threatens to unravel the fragile diplomatic momentum just as mediators prepare to join the next phase of talks in Switzerland. The intelligence, according to a source familiar with the matter, reflects that "Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal," raising fundamental questions about the viability of the entire process.
The Axios report, citing three sources familiar with the discussions, reveals that Ratcliffe and Rubio argued that the intelligence raised doubts about whether Iran would agree to take the nuclear-related steps sought by Washington. The skepticism is not merely a difference of opinion; it stems from specific intelligence indicating that Iranian officials' internal discussions about the deal were inconsistent with what they were telling mediators and the United States. This disconnect has fueled concerns within the administration that Tehran may be seeking to benefit from the preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) without intending to follow through on the nuclear concessions required for a final agreement.
Internal skeptics of the deal believe Iran is unlikely to sign a nuclear agreement on US terms and could benefit more than Washington from the MOU in the meantime, gaining sanctions relief and financial inflows while preserving its nuclear infrastructure. A senior US official has conceded that the administration will know within two to three weeks whether Iran is serious about nuclear concessions, a timeline that underscores the high-stakes gamble the White House is taking.
Despite the intelligence warnings, the administration is moving forward with the signing of the MOU, scheduled for June 19 in Switzerland. The 14-point initial deal, the full text of which has not been published, is designed to extend the ceasefire and launch 60 days of negotiations, which can be extended by mutual consent. During these talks, Iran would reiterate its past commitment to never acquire or procure a nuclear weapon. A source familiar with the text told Axios that the US and Iran would seek to resolve the status of stockpiled enriched material and discuss future enrichment and other matters related to Iran's nuclear needs, based on a framework to be agreed in a final deal.
Iran would maintain the status quo of its nuclear programme while negotiations continue, while the US would not impose new sanctions or deploy additional forces to the region. If a final nuclear deal is reached, the US would remove the forces it mobilized for the war within 30 days and terminate sanctions against Iran under an agreed schedule. The MOU also calls for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen in the near term, with Iran using its best efforts to ensure safe passage for commercial vessels without charge for 60 days, while the US gradually lifts its blockade within 30 days.
A Chasm of Interpretation
The negotiations have been plagued by conflicting accounts of the deal's terms, with Washington and Tehran offering different interpretations. The most contentious issue remains the release of Iran's frozen assets. A senior Iranian official has claimed the US agreed to release $25 billion of frozen Iranian assets, while US officials have flatly denied any upfront payment, describing the arrangement as a "pay for performance" model. Vice President JD Vance has insisted that "Iran doesn't get a dime of money unless they perform their obligations," a stance that directly contradicts Tehran's narrative.
Similarly, while a US administration official has said the agreement would eventually lead to the dismantling of Iran's nuclear programme and the removal of its enriched uranium, Iran has stated that it has not accepted any new nuclear obligations and that the stockpile would be diluted inside Iran, not destroyed and removed. The deal also envisions a plan for a $300 billion fund for Iran's reconstruction and economic development, a figure that has raised eyebrows in Washington and among US allies.
The preliminary deal has triggered a political firestorm in Israel, which has been left out of the negotiations and denied access to the full text of the MOU. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted that Israel would continue to act to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, "with or without a deal," a clear signal that Israel does not consider itself bound by the agreement. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir delivered Israel's first public reaction, declaring that "Trump's agreement does not bind us," and rejecting any limits on Israeli military action or concessions in Lebanon.
The Israeli right wing has condemned the deal, with critics arguing that it prioritizes regional calm and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz while leaving Iran's nuclear program, missile program, and support for regional proxies for later negotiations. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has said the emerging agreement achieves "none of Israel's goals," noting that "the regime survives, the missile program remains intact, and Iran retains the ability to rebuild its nuclear program."