Six days after President Trump formally agreed to a 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran to establish a framework for peace and ongoing negotiations over its nuclear program, the American leader announced Tuesday that the Islamist regime has agreed to allow nuclear inspectors into the country, even as some Iranian officials disputed the claim. Lawmakers and experts are expressing hope but remain highly wary of whether the peace plan will unfold to the advantage of the U.S.

Under the agreement, Washington also agreed to waive sanctions against Tehran for 60 days as negotiations move forward. But according to a Reuters report, Iran stated “it had not agreed to invite back International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.” Trump responded on Truth Social, saying that Iran was making “false statements” and insisting that the regime “has fully and completely agreed to [the] highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!)”

The president further emphasized that the $12 billion in Iranian assets that have been unfrozen as part of the deal would only be authorized to be used to buy American-made medical supplies and food, including corn, wheat, and soybeans. But Iran also disputed this point, with Tehran’s U.N. ambassador Ali Bahreini asserting that “Iran is the only country to decide what to do with its assets. … I reject any claim about that if there would be any role for any other country to have an influence on those decisions or on those processes.”

The conflicting statements reflect an uncertain future for the peace agreement, even as reports emerged Monday that tanker traffic along the Strait of Hormuz was beginning to resume, which could eventually result in oil prices falling and a reduction in global inflation.

U.S. lawmakers like Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who serves as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are expressing hope that the current deal will result in positive outcomes in the long run.

“[The MOU] reopens the Strait of Hormuz, which is a good thing,” he observed during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Monday. “And it lets Iran sell its oil on the world market, which I argue is also a good thing. They were selling it before the Strait of Hormuz was open. We can say it was sanctioned, but they were just selling it to China at a discounted price, which, frankly, hurt America because that oil wasn’t on the world market. … I think some people are getting very wrapped around the axle with what some of the paragraphs say, and I understand they are concerning, but I’m going to be focused on what’s in the final deal.”

Looming large over the deal has been the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Lebanon-based, Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, which has persistently attacked Israel with missiles from across its northern border since the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attack on the Jewish state. Part of the MOU’s stipulations are that military activity in Lebanon cease, but Israeli retaliatory strikes against Hezbollah for its ongoing attacks have complicated the deal. Reuters reports that the latest ceasefire between the two sides “has largely held in southern Lebanon since Sunday,” although Israel has insisted “it will maintain a security zone in southern Lebanon and continue to act to ‘neutralise’ threats against Israeli soldiers and citizens.”

Fine underscored that Israel must be able to protect itself regardless of the provisions with the MOU. “I’m an America first guy, and part of being America first means that I have to respect other countries’ rights to put themselves first,” he made clear. “Israel is not party to this deal. I would hope that the politicians in Israel are Israel first and not America first. We don’t want them to be accused of having dual loyalty to America.”

Fine further highlighted a revealing omission in the MOU on the part of Iran. “I think Iran has basically admitted that Hezbollah doesn’t exist, that Hezbollah is Iran. [W]e need to understand that when Hezbollah is firing rockets at Israel, it is Iran that is firing rockets at Israel. I’m not going to ask an ally of the United States to do anything different than we would do if someone [were] shooting rockets at us. If some Muslim terrorists were shooting rockets at us from Cuba or Canada or Mexico, we’d wipe them off the face of the earth. If that’s what our ally, acting in their interests, thinks is the best thing for them to do, well, then I’m all behind it for them.”

As for what kind of deal needs to be hashed out within the 60-day window to benefit the U.S., Fine contended that it must be focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

“[T]hat has been the fundamental reason to do all of this — that is [a] denuclearized Iran,” he stressed. “All of the materials being rounded up and taken out and destroyed. No more nuclear program and constant monitoring. If we get that, this will have been a win for the United States. I’m highly skeptical. I’ll believe it when I see it. This may turn into 60 days and another 60 days and another 60 days. I hope they’re successful, but … we’re dealing with bad people, people who for 47 years screamed ‘Death to America.’ People who have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands. … [W]hether we get to a long-term solution, that remains to be seen.”

Fine also argued that an apparent openness on Iran’s part toward nuclear inspectors “is incrementally positive. But it’s certainly not a solution to the long-term issue. … [A]s long as we’re in those discussions, the Strait of Hormuz is open. I think it’s positive, but at the end of the day, we have to know definitively that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon for this to be an unmitigated success.”

Fine went on to caution against unfreezing Iranian assets at the outset of negotiations. “If we give them $24 billion to buy food, that gives them $24 billion that they were going to spend on food that they can spend on other things. But so long as the unfreezing of the assets is tied to the behavior that we want to see, it is not inherently bad. The problem is, if we do things for Iran now, in return for a promise to do things in the future, that is a mistake. Value needs to be given simultaneously for any hope of this to work.”

Experts like Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, a 36-year Army veteran and former special forces commander, agreed. “[A]s far as I’m concerned, we need to do something with that money other than give it back to them — or we’re doing exactly what we did before and it’ll wind up in the wrong places. And it’ll wind up in places where we don’t want it to be, which would create a threat for us.”