President Donald Trump ’ s nascent agreement with Iran is beset by problems right now as several conservatives balk at it, but at the top of the list may be the matter of money flowing to Tehran. In an interview with CBS News Monday morning, Vice President JD Vance seemed to tacitly confirm the premise that Iran could be given “ access ” to a reconstruction fund worth as much as $ 300 billion. The matter has quickly moved to the forefront of national discussion.

Background

The current development is the latest chapter in a longer and complex story.

Instead, it would be money from other Gulf countries that would only be available if Iran complies with a peace deal.

Vance said late Monday on Fox News that “ we would invite other countries — not us, but other countries — to invest in ” Iran.

It has also emerged that he echoed that Tuesday, telling Megyn Kelly that the US wouldn ’ t let the United Arab Emirates, for example, “ invest in Iran, unless the Iranians change their behavior. ” Except these are distinctions that Republicans — and Trump especially — have dismissed or even excoriated in the past.

International Reaction

The reaction from the broader community of observers has been significant.

When the Obama administration and other countries cut a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, it included giving Iran access to billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, sources familiar with the matter indicate that in that case, it wasn ’ t money from other countries, but instead Iran ’ s own assets that had been frozen in foreign banks under sanctions.

In a related development, he said that same month in Oklahoma City that “ we ’ re giving them $ 150 billion in order to create terror all over the world. ” At a December 2015 Republican presidential debate, Trump called it a “ horrible, disgusting, absolutely incompetent deal with Iran where they get $ 150 billion, ” adding: “ They ’ re a terrorist nation. ” “ I just don ’ t understand how we could have made a deal where we ’ re giving somebody that ’ s a terror nation $ 150 billion, ” he said the next month in Iowa City.

What It Means

The broader implications of this development are already coming into focus.

The situations aren ’ t completely parallel, in that unfrozen Iranian assets aren ’ t the same as money from other countries.

According to those with knowledge of the situation, that even if the funds can ’ t be employed directly for terrorism, they could be used to replace money that could then be diverted for terrorist uses.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, they paid all of that money in cash. ” ( Again, the US did not pay the money in cash, and it wasn ’ t $ 150 billion.)

As the story continues to develop, “ The Iran nuclear settlement signed by President Obama gave them $ 150 billion, and that ’ s when the real terror started, ” Trump added the next day in an interview with Fox News.

Meanwhile, sources familiar with the matter indicate that but, no, they ’ ll give them 250. ” On Monday, Trump ’ s own vice president suggested Iran could be given access to a fund with even more than that.

Next Steps

This story will continue to develop. Observers, policymakers, and citizens will all be watching what happens next in a situation that has already proven to be significant in multiple respects.