Susan Rice, a former national security adviser and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, denounced a preliminary Iran agreement as “flimsy,” warning that major concessions were granted up front and that the deal leaves the United States weaker—while Israel pa
When Susan Rice sat down on ABC News’ “This Week,” she didn’t speak in cautious language. She called the Trump administration’s preliminary agreement with Iran “flimsy. ” said “so many concessions were granted up front. ” and warned that the United States is now locked into what she described as “a very bad outcome.”.
Rice tied her criticism to the text itself: a two-page memorandum of understanding in which she argued the most sensitive nuclear issues are not yet settled on paper. In her view, the document grants concessions before a full comprehensive deal exists to address Iran’s nuclear program.
“It’s egregious. Jon. because so many concessions were granted up front in this flimsy. two-page memorandum of understanding that wouldn’t normally and shouldn’t have been granted until after there was not only a full comprehensive deal to at least deal with their nuclear program. but also that those provisions that were negotiated had been agreed. ” Rice told Jonathan Karl.
Rice’s argument rests on what she said Iran was allowed to do and what she said the United States was required to resolve later. She pointed to one paragraph in the memo reaffirming that “The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. ” while saying enrichment limits and the handling of highly enriched uranium stockpiles remain not definitive.
In the memo text. the United States and Iran agreed to resolve the disposition of enriched material through “a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon … with the minimum methodology to be down blending on site under the supervision of the (International Atomic Energy Agency).” The parties also agreed to discuss “the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs.”.
For Rice, the most urgent consequences are outside the memo’s nuclear language. She said Iran is positioned to take advantage of economic relief quickly—specifically by accessing frozen assets and selling oil without unimpeded restriction.
“As of the signing of this agreement,” Rice said Iran “is now able to sell all of its oil and all of its oil products on the market unimpeded, and use that money to re-hold itself.” She then argued that the agreement would also open a large stream of money from frozen assets within a tight window.
“Second. they get access to tens of billions of dollars of frozen assets in the very near term. within the next 60 days. contingent only upon the memorandum of understanding. this flimsy two-page document being implemented. That means essentially. once they’ve opened the strait. they get all the access to their frozen assets without any constraint on how they spend it. ” Rice said. “In the Obama-era deal, they could only spend those frozen assets on humanitarian things — food and medicine. Now they can use it to fund their terrorist proxies.”.
Rice also attacked the memorandum’s approach to the Strait of Hormuz and the structure of future economic development. She criticized provisions on future unfreezing of assets and a plan described in the memo for the United States and Gulf partners “to develop a definitive. mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”.
She noted that U.S. officials say Iran will not be able to impose tolls in the strait even after 60 days, and that Iran is only “rewarded economically” if it complies with the deal. She also said U.S. officials contend the United States will not contribute money to that $300 billion fund.
Karl pressed Rice on the logic of accepting any deal rather than none, asking: “Isn’t a weak peace agreement better than a resumption of a war, which I know you opposed from the start?”
Rice’s response was forceful. She said she opposed the war because it was “a stupid war,” and that diplomacy was always the route to resolving the dispute.
“I oppose this war because it was a stupid war. and it was obvious that when you wage a stupid war that every prior president had the wisdom to avoid. that you were going to end up with either bad outcomes or worse outcomes. ” Rice said. “It was obvious for decades that the only way to resolve this problem is through diplomacy. And now we’re back to diplomacy with a far weaker hand. Yes. their military has been degraded. but Iran has now figured out they can use the Strait of Hormuz to hold us and the global economy hostage anytime they want.”.
Rice described the war overall as “a strategic blunder” and said the consequences spread from the battlefield to the American public.
“We have suffered enormously. The American people have suffered. We’ve lost 13 servicemen and women. We have paid over $50 billion of taxpayer money for a war we never should have waged. The American consumer is paying more than $50 billion in increased costs. Our standing in the world is weakened,” she said. “And we’ve shown that when the United States. the greatest military on the face of the planet. and the Israeli army. the Israeli military. throw the kitchen sink at Iran. they can left — be left still standing. which weakens us globally.”.
Her criticism also landed on the political relationship between the United States and Israel as negotiations unfold. Rice pointed to a rift she said is already visible: she said that while Israel and the United States started the war together, they do not appear to be ending it on the same page.
She referenced Vice President JD Vance’s remarks on Thursday. when he chastised Israeli officials who were publicly criticizing the agreement. Vance said at a White House press briefing that “Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. ” and added that Trump is “the head of state of the world’s superpower.” Vance said. “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government. I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”.
Rice called Vance’s statement “extraordinary” and said she was sure it shocked people “particularly in Israel.” She also said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to “persuade many prior presidents to engage in war with Israel against Iran. ” that Trump was the first to “take the bait. ” and that the result left Israel worse off.
“What we’ve got as a result of that war … is a strengthened Iran in terms of its geopolitical stature in the region. not militarily conventionally in the short term. but its nuclear program is fully intact. There is nothing in that agreement that requires that the nuclear material. the dust. as the president likes to call it. will be removed from Iran. ” Rice said. “So. the Israelis have suffered the most because now — you know. this administration. if you take the president and the vice president’s words. has basically said to Israel. ‘Your concerns are not ours.’”.
Rice, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before her tenure as national security adviser. offered a reminder of the bargaining model she said is missing now. She recalled that she served as national security adviser during the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. which was negotiated over a year and a half before being signed in July 2015. Under that multinational agreement. Iran made numerous concessions on its nuclear program and agreed to never seek or develop a nuclear weapon—a commitment she said Iran reaffirmed in the latest agreement.
Rice listed key concessions under the 2015 deal, including that Iran would not enrich bomb-grade uranium for 15 years, dismantle two-thirds of its centrifuges, give up 98% of its uranium stockpile, and allow United Nations inspectors to monitor its adherence.
But in her telling, the present moment is defined less by what is promised than by what is still undecided—and by the speed with which economic and strategic leverage shifts.
With Rice’s warnings now on record, the question facing U.S. policy and its partners is stark: whether the memorandum’s early concessions are a bridge toward a comprehensive settlement—or the start of a bargain that locks in outcomes while leaving the most sensitive issues unfinished.
Susan Rice Iran agreement memorandum of understanding nuclear program Strait of Hormuz frozen assets tens of billions strategic blunder Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 deal Jonathan Karl JD Vance Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump