Vice President JD Vance made it clear Monday that despite whispers of a thaw in U.S. relations with Iran, the regime will not have free access to its frozen assets unless the White House sees tangible progress.

Vance confirmed that discussions are ongoing about allowing some of those funds to be directed toward the purchase of American soybeans, potentially through an oversight process involving Qatar.

When reporters pressed him on whether Iran had already secured an agreement to buy soybeans, Vance did not mince words.

“Yeah, that was something that came up yesterday,” he said.

Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement

“We actually asked the Qataris to help us set up the mechanism so that we could ensure that the money goes where we want it to go. And they agreed to do that.”

Vance described the arrangement as one that would benefit both nations, though he made clear that the priority remains ensuring the funds are controlled.

“We have a good relationship, obviously, with them and a good operational oversight mechanism in place,” he explained.

“But even with that said, even with the caveat that it’s going to benefit American farmers and obviously benefit the people of Iran, we want both. But fundamentally, that money is not going to be unfrozen unless we continue to see progress. And that will obviously be a big part of the negotiation in the days to come.”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

WATCH:

The remarks came in the wake of a Memorandum of Understanding recently released between the United States and Iran.

The document, confirmed by the White House after being shared with reporters, outlines a tentative framework for cooperation touching on sanctions, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and ongoing negotiations meant to prevent Tehran from escalating its regional aggression.

According to the memorandum, the U.S. agreed that it would “make fully available for use” Iran’s frozen or restricted funds after the implementation of the agreement.

It also clarified that both countries would decide together how to release those funds, which could then be used for transactions “to any ultimate beneficiary” designated by the Central Bank of Iran.

That clause, while couched in diplomacy, raised eyebrows across Washington.

Critics on Capitol Hill are wary that any “good faith” commitments by Iran could quickly unravel once the money starts to flow.

For decades, American administrations have learned the hard way that Tehran is far better at making promises than keeping them.

Still, Vance seemed eager to highlight the administration’s intent to use economic leverage creatively.

The possibility that Iran might spend part of its unfrozen assets on American soybeans could be marketed as a small win for U.S. farmers.

Yet many conservatives see the dynamic differently, arguing that selling products to a regime known for funding terror networks is hardly a victory for the United States.

The Biden administration’s history with Iran has left conservatives deeply skeptical that any safeguards or “oversight mechanisms” will actually restrain the regime.

From the Obama-era Iran Deal to the secretive transfers of cash pallets to Tehran, Americans have seen what happens when Democratic administrations try to bargain with mullahs.

The results have rarely favored the interests of the United States or its allies.

For Vance, the balancing act is delicate.

The administration is trying to boast about its “accountability measures” while simultaneously negotiating with one of the most deceptive governments in the world.

As he pointed out, progress is still the determining factor, meaning Tehran will have to show compliance before any dollar becomes available.

Yet the definition of “progress” often changes depending on which side sits behind the Resolute Desk.

Among farmers, there may be some cautious optimism. Soybean producers who have faced trade headwinds over the last several years could see exports rise if a deal ever materializes.

The catch, of course, is that the same funds would be coming from accounts frozen because of Iran’s own misconduct.

It hardly feels like wholesome economic development when the buyer is a regime with a long record of proxy wars and regional destabilization.

The inclusion of Qatar as a sort of financial middleman reflects ongoing Gulf diplomacy that has played both sides of the fence.

Doha maintains a working relationship with Tehran, which often puts it at odds with Washington’s supposed hardline posture.

However, Vance’s remarks seem to suggest that the administration views the Qatari channel as a way to maintain supervision without direct exposure.

Even so, conservative lawmakers will likely demand transparency as negotiations proceed.

Congress will want to know precisely how any transaction is tracked, who authorizes each payment, and what guarantees exist to prevent Iran from diverting funds toward its Revolutionary Guard or militant affiliates.

These are not minor details but national security imperatives.

Vance’s approach reflects growing pressure within the administration to show results from months of foreign diplomacy.

Whether those results amount to meaningful security gains for the American people or just another international handshake remains to be seen.

If recent history is any guide, Iran knows how to milk the carrot and dodge the stick every single time.

The Real MOU: What Trump’s Iran Agreement Actually Says – Truth Thursday | EP 677