$300 Billion for a Regime We Can’t Trust

By Farzan Faramarzi

This article was first published in Washington Examiner

The United States and Iran have reached an agreement. While the deal is set to take effect on Friday, we still do not know its full details. What we do know is that the U.S. is lifting its naval blockade on Iranian ports and that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen. Vice President JD Vance announced that the full text of the agreement will be released this week and confirmed on CBS that a $300 billion reconstruction fund is part of the deal. The Iranian side has made a similar claim.

As we wait to see the full text, if the $300 billion figure is accurate, this could become one of the most disastrous agreements in U.S. history. During the Obama administration, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Islamic Republic gained access to roughly $50 to $55 billion of its previously frozen assets. The United States also separately transferred $1.7 billion to Iran as part of a legal settlement with the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal. In January 2016, the Obama administration sent a plane loaded with cash—the first of three such shipments.

While War Secretary Pete Hegseth insists that this new deal differs from the JCPOA, former President Obama has suggested that it may not be significantly different from the agreement his administration negotiated. Israel, America’s main ally in the Middle East, has reacted very differently. News of an initial U.S.-Iran accord triggered a fierce, cross-partisan backlash in Israel. Deeming the agreement a national disaster, both citizens and politicians have directed their frustration toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While Tehran has claimed victory, tensions are also rising inside Iran. Multiple reports and videos posted on X appear to show Iranian hardliners and Basij militia members clashing with security forces. Some protesters are reportedly chanting “Death to Ghalibaf” and “Death to Araghchi.” Ghalibaf is the Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, and Araghchi is Iran’s Foreign Minister; both were part of the regime’s negotiation team.

Reviewing the Islamic Republic’s behavior over the past four decades shows a consistent pattern: prioritizing survival at any cost, suppressing dissent at home and abroad, and generating tension in its foreign policy. At times, the regime has engaged in negotiation and diplomacy—such as the nuclear deal and this recent agreement—while simultaneously supporting proxy groups across the region, threatening the United States and its allies, and, in recent conflicts, even targeting neighboring countries as part of its policy of “strategic depth.”

Central to Iran’s regional strategy, “strategic depth” (often translated from the Persian omq-e stratezhik) reflects the belief that national security requires projecting influence, deterrence, and operational power beyond its borders, rather than merely defending them. Accordingly, the regime supports multiple armed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shi’a militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

While the full terms of the agreement remain unclear, the United States should approach this deal with caution grounded in experience, not optimism. The Islamic Republic’s four-decade record shows a pattern of repression at home and destabilization abroad. Any agreement that ignores this reality risks repeating past mistakes. If this deal moves forward, it must be paired with clear enforcement mechanisms and a firm commitment to holding Tehran accountable—not only for its regional actions, but for its ongoing human rights abuses.