Trump once attacked Iran cash deals. Now he’s defending a $300 billion fund

Washington: US President Donald Trump is facing criticism over a proposed reconstruction and investment fund for Iran that could be worth up to $300 billion, with opponents arguing it resembles arrangements he fiercely criticised under former president Barack Obama, according to a CNN analysis.

The controversy erupted after Vice-President JD Vance, in an interview with CBS News on Monday, appeared to confirm reports that Iran could eventually benefit from a large reconstruction fund if it complies with the terms of a peace deal.

The White House has since sought to clarify the proposal, stressing that the money would not come from US taxpayers. Officials said any funding would come from outside investors, including Gulf countries, and would only be made available if Iran meets its obligations under an agreement.

Vance later told Fox News that the United States would encourage other countries, rather than Washington itself, to invest in Iran if Tehran changes its behaviour.

“We would invite other countries — not us, but other countries — to invest in it,” Vance said.

Speaking again on Tuesday, he said the United States would not allow countries to invest in Iran unless Tehran complied with a peace framework.

The remarks nevertheless triggered criticism from some Republicans because Trump spent years attacking the Obama administration for allowing Iran access to billions of dollars in frozen assets under the 2015 nuclear agreement.

At the time, Trump argued that releasing funds to Tehran would strengthen a regime he repeatedly described as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.

In speeches, campaign rallies and interviews, Trump frequently claimed the Obama administration had effectively handed Iran $150 billion, often portraying the move as one of the worst foreign policy decisions in US history.

“I just don’t understand how we could have made a deal where we’re giving somebody that’s a terror nation $150 billion,” Trump said during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Although the situations differ in important ways, critics say both involve making substantial financial resources available to Iran as part of a diplomatic agreement.

Administration officials insist there are significant distinctions.

The Obama-era deal involved access to Iranian assets that had been frozen abroad under sanctions, while the current proposal would rely on investment and reconstruction funding from third countries rather than direct US involvement.

Officials also argue that any investment would be conditional on Iran’s compliance with a broader peace agreement and could be withdrawn if Tehran violated its commitments.

Even so, some conservative commentators have questioned whether the distinction will satisfy voters who heard Trump spend years arguing that any large financial benefit to Iran ultimately strengthens the regime.

The issue threatens to become one of the most contentious aspects of Trump’s emerging Iran strategy as the administration seeks support for a broader agreement aimed at ending months of conflict and reducing tensions across the Middle East.

For opponents, the proposed fund appears difficult to reconcile with Trump’s long-standing criticism of previous efforts to provide Tehran with economic incentives.

For supporters, however, the administration argues that encouraging outside investment could help lock Iran into a more stable relationship with the international community without costing American taxpayers a dollar.

As negotiations continue, the debate over whether economic incentives can secure lasting peace — and whether they differ from the arrangements Trump once condemned — is likely to remain a central political battleground.