Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper says he has “serious” questions about the preliminary U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, arguing that too many incentives appear to be granted up front. He also warns that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be allowed to fall u
The Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical chokepoints—has become a ticking clock in U.S.-Iran diplomacy, and Mark Esper is worried the calendar could run out on America.
On Sunday. the former Trump Defense Secretary appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press. ” where host Garrett Haake pressed him on the preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement signed by President Donald Trump. Esper said he does not dispute the deal’s broad aims—extending the ceasefire. opening the strait. and moving toward nuclear talks—but he drew a sharp line at the structure of what comes next.
“Well, look, I like the fact that we’ve extended the ceasefire,” Esper said. “I like the fact that the strait is being opened up, that will provide economic relief to a lot of people, and I like the fact that we’re getting into nuclear talks.”
Then he shifted, underscoring that his support ends where uncertainty begins. “But that said, when I look at the MOU, there are many of the points that I have serious questions about and concerns about.”
Esper’s central concern is timing and leverage. He said “in many ways it’s a wait and see. ” and argued the incentives built into the memorandum appear to be delivered “up front instead of later in the deal” after more progress is demonstrated on the nuclear aspects of any potential agreement. Haake then asked whether the Trump administration has been “too trusting of the Iranians.”.
Esper rejected the premise of blind trust while still emphasizing the core skepticism at the heart of the negotiations. “Well, I don’t believe so. You know. you look at many of the players on the team. they’re experienced in foreign policy for some time. I don’t think they trust the Iranians. Nobody trusts the Iranians. I think they put a deal on the table,” he said. He framed it as a test—one that has much more to unfold. “As the vice president said. ‘Let’s give it a shot and see if it works. ’ and in that regard I’d say. ‘Yeah. there’s a lot more of this football game to play out.’”.
The pressure point, in Esper’s view, is the strait itself—and whether Iran can effectively control it. Haake raised the lingering uncertainty: it’s “still not totally clear if the strait is open or closed.” He asked whether that ambiguity makes the agreement “worthless” if Iran can open and shut the strait or charge fees on it.
Esper answered with a warning about strategic control. That scenario, he said, would “clearly” indicate a “strategic setback.”
“We cannot allow the Iranians to control the Strait of Hormuz … and that’s why I say this needs to play out. ” Esper said. He pointed to time as the next battleground: “And. you know. there’s been some suggestions that there have been side agreements. or gentlemen’s agreements. we need to know what those are. But I think we need to let this play out a little bit and see what actually happens with regard to the strait after the 60 days.”.
The interview also broadened to domestic politics and decision-making inside the administration. Haake asked whether Esper trusts that the president is being advised by “people who think their loyalty is to the Constitution.”
“I don’t see that the president is always getting good advice, and so I think that’s the question to ask,” Esper said. “I think Republicans on Capitol Hill have asked that same question. Is the president getting the best advice with regard to these strategic matters?”
Esper’s remarks land amid a backdrop of internal ambiguity around the agreement itself. The Trump administration delivered conflicted messaging last week about the deal being reached and when the text of the memorandum would be released. The memorandum was reportedly signed Wednesday by Trump, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and the prime minister of Pakistan.
That timing matters because just days earlier, Vice President JD Vance described the moment in more optimistic terms. On Sunday. Vance said there is an opportunity to “turn over a new leaf” with Iran as both sides held talks in Switzerland. Those talks were meant to build out the shaky interim deal to end the war in Iran after Tehran said it closed the Strait of Hormuz because of Israel’s attacks in Lebanon.
For Esper. the optimism may be premature until the most dangerous question is answered: whether the strait will remain open in practice—and whether the incentives written into the memorandum keep leverage with the United States as the nuclear negotiations progress. His view is plain enough to feel like a warning shouted over a ticking countdown—60 days. he said. is when the deal will either start holding steady or expose how much control was surrendered too early.
Mark Esper Trump administration U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding Strait of Hormuz JD Vance Masoud Pezeshkian Pakistan prime minister NBC Meet the Press Israel attacks in Lebanon nuclear talks ceasefire
So basically we’re giving them stuff first? Cool cool.
I don’t get why everyone is acting surprised. If they’re opening Hormuz then why are we even worried about timing? Sounds like they want us to look dumb.
Wait “Strait of Hormuz cannot be allowed to fall” like… does he mean physically fall like a bridge?? I’m confused. Also MOUs are just paperwork right? If it’s just a ceasefire, why are incentives even a big deal.
This is why diplomacy doesn’t work when you hand out incentives right away. The Iranians will stall, and then America’s out of calendar, like they said. Honestly I figured the whole deal was just a countdown clock to something bigger anyway. Mark Esper talking like it’s a ticking clock makes me think the next administration is gonna get blamed for “running out of time,” even though we set the terms.