June 25, 2026 | Secure Line Readout
Navigating the U.S.-Iran MOU: What Congress Needs to Know From Sanctions to Nuclear
June 25, 2026 Secure Line Readout
Navigating the U.S.-Iran MOU: What Congress Needs to Know From Sanctions to Nuclear
On FDD Action’s latest Secure Line briefing call, experts David Albright and Max Meizlish assessed the state of Iran’s nuclear program and the sanctions architecture in the days following the June 17 U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding (MOU). Albright assessed that the joint strikes by U.S. and Israeli forces have effectively destroyed Iran’s gas centrifuge program, setting back Tehran’s nuclear timeline from months to at least a year or more, but warned that Iran’s residual enriched uranium stocks and remaining centrifuge capacity require a verification regime that goes far beyond the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections currently being negotiated. Meizlish warned that General License X (GL X), issued Monday by the Treasury Department, grants Iran unconditional, unrestricted authority to sell its oil and petrochemicals for 60 days with no escrow mechanism, no volume cap, and no transaction-specific reporting requirements, potentially delivering tens of billions of dollars to the regime before Iran has made a single substantive concession. Both briefers emphasized that Congress has tools available now to constrain this process, preserve leverage, and force the administration to justify its approach, but warned that the window for action is narrow.
- The nuclear program is essentially destroyed — but not finished: Iran’s gas centrifuge program has been effectively dismantled by U.S. and Israeli strikes, with 22,000 deployed centrifuges largely destroyed and the facilities to produce centrifuges and feed gas also eliminated. But enriched uranium stocks — particularly at the 60% level — remain, along with residual centrifuge capability and serious unknowns about nuclear weaponization sites that were previously undisclosed to the IAEA.
- Iran’s playbook on inspections is delay, defuse, and pocket benefits: Iran has used MOUs with the IAEA as delaying tactics for 20 years. Conflicting signals from Iranian officials about whether Tehran agreed to inspections in Switzerland are consistent with that pattern. Albright warned that verification must go beyond access to declared sites: it must include the weaponization sites Israel revealed and a full accounting of nuclear materials and activities that Iran has not disclosed.
- General License X gives Iran billions with no conditions attached: The Treasury Department’s GL X authorizes Iran to sell oil and petrochemicals for 60 days with no escrow, no volume cap, no counterparty restrictions, and no reporting requirements. Because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) — controls much of Iran’s oil sector, Western buyers face criminal and civil liability, meaning China is the primary beneficiary. Meizlish estimates the total at a minimum of tens of billions of dollars.
- The retroactive repatriation question is urgent and unresolved: Unlike prior general licenses, GL X contains no effective date tying it to oil sold after issuance. A broad reading could allow Iran to repatriate funds from pre-existing sanctioned oil sales sitting in Chinese accounts, dramatically expanding the regime’s immediate financial windfall beyond what new sales alone would generate. Congress should urgently press Treasury to clarify and, if necessary, amend the license.
- The Iran Sanctions Act expires December 31 — and its lapse would signal non-enforcement: The Iran Sanctions Act, the statutory backbone of energy sanctions, is set to sunset at year’s end. Allowing it to lapse — particularly in combination with a posture of executive non-enforcement — would signal to private-sector actors that the statutory framework is eroding. Renewing or codifying it permanently removes that ambiguity and preserves presidential leverage for the final agreement.
- The standard for a final deal must be higher than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA): The JCPOA failed to require Iran to declare its nuclear weapons program, allowed enrichment infrastructure to remain in place and ready to reconstitute, and excluded weaponization from the verification regime. A deal that avoids those errors must begin with Iran demonstrating — not merely asserting — that it no longer has a nuclear weapons program, and must end enrichment as an industry, not just a current activity.
The State of Iran’s Nuclear Program After the Strikes
Albright opened by walking through what the joint U.S.–Israeli strikes accomplished and what they did not. Iran had approximately 22,000 gas centrifuges deployed, most of them operational. Those are now largely destroyed and Iran almost certainly cannot enrich uranium at this point. Critically, the facilities to manufacture centrifuges and the facilities to produce uranium hexafluoride feed gas were also struck. In Albright’s assessment, the enrichment program has been effectively eliminated as a functioning capability.
“The gas centrifuge program was essentially destroyed. The enriched uranium stocks, particularly the 60%, there may be some number of centrifuges that are still there and not deployed. They have a residual capability that has to be dealt with, but the program itself is essentially destroyed.”
What remains is a set of serious residuals. Enriched uranium stocks — particularly at the 60% enriched level — still exist, as may some number of centrifuges that were not deployed when the strikes occurred. Iran has moved from being able to build a nuclear weapon in several months with confidence to needing at least a year, and with considerably less certainty that any attempt would succeed. Albright emphasized that reconstituting a gas centrifuge program is not technically difficult given the right materials and expertise, which is precisely why negotiations matter and why ending enrichment is the essential outcome.
The weaponization side is a separate and more uncertain picture. Many of the sites targeted by Israel as nuclear weaponization facilities were previously unknown to the IAEA, revealed only when Israel announced what it had struck. Albright counted roughly 10 sites related to nuclear weaponization that were destroyed in the strikes, with additional sites eliminated during the second phase of operations. The implication for inspections is significant: any verification framework that focuses only on declared enrichment sites will miss exactly the program elements that represent the greatest long-term risk.
Albright identified the key analytical question for staffers tracking this: the 10 tons of enriched uranium that Iran has acknowledged represents only the declared stockpile. The inspection process that follows must establish whether any enriched material was removed from sites like Natanz and Fordow before they were bombed, and provide confidence that no undisclosed nuclear materials or activities exist. Iran, he noted, will push to limit the inspection discussion to its declared stocks. That framing should be resisted.
The Inspection Challenge: Access Is Not Enough
The administration announced on Monday that Iran had agreed during the Switzerland talks to grant the IAEA access to inspect nuclear facilities. Iranian officials — including the Iranian president — publicly contradicted that characterization, stating that no such agreement had been reached and that inspection modalities would be addressed only in a final agreement. Albright said this pattern is consistent with how Iran has operated with the IAEA under previous MOUs for two decades: use the process to delay, defuse pressure, and collect benefits while the other side waits.
The fundamental issue, Albright said, is not access per se: it is compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has established clearly that Iran has had undeclared nuclear material, has not cooperated with inspection requests, and has been condemned by the Board of Governors. The test of whether Iran is serious is simple: will it allow inspectors to go to the sites that matter, provide the information the IAEA has requested for years, and — most tellingly — admit that it had a nuclear weapons program? Countries that have genuinely dismantled weapons programs have acknowledged them and submitted to comprehensive verification. South Africa, for example, initially denied its program but ultimately admitted it and cooperated fully, allowing the IAEA to complete its verification exercise in roughly five months.
“If they’re not willing to admit to having a nuclear weapons program and allowing that to be inspected, then this process is probably not going to end well for the United States.”
There is also a continuity-of-knowledge problem. IAEA inspectors have not been present at the attacked sites since June 2025. The agency now faces an audit challenge it has not confronted since the post-apartheid South Africa case: establishing the location and quantity of all declared enriched material after a year-long gap, accounting for what was destroyed by bombing versus what may have been removed or hidden, and building confidence that the declared stockpile is actually complete. If Iran is uncooperative, this process could take years, and Iran, Albright said, has every incentive to exploit that timeline.
A related opportunity that Albright said is currently being overlooked: the strikes revealed previously unknown weaponization sites that the IAEA has never inspected. For decades, Iran has denied inspectors access to military sites where nuclear weapons development was alleged to have occurred. The combination of military leverage and demonstrated evidence from the strikes creates a window to demand access to those sites, a window that closing too quickly for the sake of a symbolic inspection agreement would forfeit.
General License X: Unconditional Relief Before Any Performance
Meizlish turned to the sanctions side of the MOU, focusing on General License X (GL X), issued by the Treasury Department on Monday. GL X authorizes Iran to produce, sell, and deliver crude oil and petrochemicals for 60 days. In Meizlish’s assessment, it represents an unconditional financial concession at exactly the wrong moment in the negotiating sequence.
The specific design flaws he flagged: GL X contains no escrow mechanism to control where revenues flow, no cap on the volume or value of sales, no counterparty restrictions on who can buy, and no transaction-specific reporting requirements that would allow the U.S. government — including Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) — to understand how the license is actually being used. Contrast this with OFAC’s Venezuela approach, where restricted accounts and escrow mechanisms gave Treasury and State visibility into fund flows under general licenses. No comparable mechanism exists in GL X.
“The United States appears to be giving Iran a windfall of cash in response to really very little that Iran is actually doing to make a meaningful dent on either the nuclear side or its support for terrorism.”
The IRGC dimension compounds the problem. Because the IRGC — designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States — controls Iran’s oil, petroleum products, and petrochemical sectors, any U.S. or Western counterparty faces significant criminal and civil liability even under GL X, which does not waive the FTO designation. The practical result is that conventional commercial buyers will largely avoid the license, leaving China as the primary beneficiary. Iran has been selling approximately 90% of its sanctioned oil supply to China, and that pattern is expected to continue under GL X.
Meizlish estimated total revenues over the 60-day window at a minimum of tens of billions of dollars from oil and petrochemical sales combined, not including any potential extension of the license beyond the initial period.
The Retroactive Repatriation Risk and the Iran Sanctions Act Deadline
Meizlish identified a second, underappreciated risk in the text of GL X: unlike a prior general license (General License U, or GL U) that was issued earlier in the war and explicitly applied only to oil at sea as of its issuance date, GL X contains no comparable effective date language tying it to oil sold after Monday. A broad reading of the license could therefore allow Iran to repatriate funds sitting in Chinese accounts from previously completed but sanctioned oil sales, transactions that occurred before GL X was issued.
The scale of that potential windfall is significant. A substantial amount of Iranian oil revenue has accumulated in accounts in China from years of sanctioned sales. If that backlog is eligible for repatriation under GL X, the financial benefit to Iran — potentially accessible in dollars if China converts the funds — becomes much larger than what the 60-day forward-looking sales period alone would generate. Meizlish pressed staffers to seek urgent clarification from Treasury on this question and to push for an immediate amendment clarifying that GL X applies only to new sales following its issuance date.
“We are giving up huge amounts of leverage without Iran really doing anything to create some sort of a permanent change to its behavior. And if that’s the case, it should make us all question: why would Iran have any incentive to ever leave the negotiation?”
On the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA): Meizlish and moderator Alexandria Paolozzi Moore both emphasized that the act — the statutory backbone of energy sanctions — is set to expire on December 31. The House has already passed the Solidify Iran Sanctions Act, legislation to eliminate a sunset clause in the ISA; the Senate has not yet acted. Meizlish warned that even if the administration has no current intention of broad sanctions relief, allowing the act to lapse would signal to private-sector businesses that the statutory framework is eroding. Combined with executive non-enforcement, that signal could produce de facto sanctions erosion without any formal policy decision. Congress renewing — or better, permanently codifying — the Iran Sanctions Act gives the president more leverage in the final negotiation, not less.
A questioner asked Albright about the value of Iran agreeing to implement the Additional Protocol — the IAEA’s enhanced inspection and verification framework that goes beyond the standard safeguards agreement — and what the absence of inspectors since June 2025 means for verification now.
Albright said Iran has previously agreed to implement the Additional Protocol at various points, and it has been useful: it helped build the evidentiary case that Iran had undeclared nuclear material. But it has not resolved the fundamental compliance problem: Iran has never provided the complete declaration of its nuclear activities that the NPT requires, and the Additional Protocol did not force that disclosure. It added evidence, not resolution.
On continuity of knowledge: the absence of IAEA inspectors since June 2025 means the agency faces a full restart of its accounting exercise. It knew precisely what was at declared sites as of June 2025. It now has to establish how much of that material was destroyed by bombing, how much was converted to “nuclear dust” as Iran may claim, and how much — if any — was moved out and hidden before the strikes. This is not an impossible task; it has been done in analogous post-conflict contexts. But it requires Iran’s active cooperation, and Iran has a strong incentive to be as unhelpful as possible while still appearing engaged.
Albright’s benchmark: when South Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons program and eventually cooperated fully with the IAEA, the verification process took about five months. The technical challenge of verifying Iran’s dismantlement is not fundamentally different, but it depends entirely on whether Tehran chooses to cooperate or obstruct.
Meizlish drew a pointed contrast between GL X and OFAC’s approach to general licenses in the Venezuela context. In Venezuela, the U.S. government used two related mechanisms to maintain leverage over sanctioned oil revenues: escrow accounts for frozen funds held abroad, and “restricted accounts” that gave Treasury and State visibility into funds moving pursuant to general licenses. Neither mechanism is present in GL X.
His assessment: the office that drafted GL X is the same office that implemented the more carefully structured Venezuela licenses. This is not an oversight. The absence of an escrow mechanism, reporting requirements, and counterparty restrictions was a policy choice, one that Congress should press the administration to justify publicly.
The escrow distinction matters practically: an escrow mechanism would not stop the sales from occurring, but it would allow the U.S. to control the timing and conditions under which funds are released to Iran, creating a lever for the negotiating process. Without it, Iran receives funds as transactions clear — typically within several weeks to two months of a sale — regardless of whether it has made any further concessions.
Meizlish noted that GL X could be amended today if Treasury chose to act. He expressed the view that the current structure reflects the administration’s intended policy, not an administrative gap, which is precisely why congressional engagement and public scrutiny are important.
Albright laid out the elements that distinguish a durable agreement from a replay of the JCPOA. The central failure of the JCPOA was that it decided it could not require Iran to declare its nuclear weapons program, and chose to proceed anyway. The result was a deal built on an unresolved foundation, one that Iran was positioned to exploit and eventually dismantle.
The first test of the current process should be whether Iran will acknowledge that it had a nuclear weapons program and submit to verification of its dismantlement. Other countries have done this: it is not without precedent. If Iran refuses, Albright said, that refusal is itself information that should lead negotiators to question whether the entire process is a delaying tactic.
The second critical element is ending enrichment — not just suspending current enrichment activity but dismantling the enrichment industry as a going concern. Under the JCPOA, centrifuge engineers and technicians remained in place, working on “allowed” activities that kept the expertise and industrial base intact and ready to reconstitute. Albright said ending the program must mean ending that industry: people transition to other work, equipment is repurposed, facilities are converted. Iran buys enriched uranium for the Bushehr reactor from Russia and plans to continue doing so for Bushehr Units 2, 3, and 4, and there is no civilian energy rationale for maintaining a domestic enrichment program.
The military threat dimension: Albright argued that Iran’s negotiating posture will be shaped primarily by whether it believes it faces a credible risk of resumed strikes. He noted that Iran has historically been willing to reverse public positions without saving face — denying centrifuge programs for years and then acknowledging them — but that the driving force for genuine concessions has to be the belief that the alternative is worse. Maintaining, and if necessary using, military pressure is not separate from the diplomatic process: it is what makes the diplomatic process function.
Meizlish was asked about the durability of the U.S. sanctions architecture against executive pressure to unwind it before a final deal is in place. His assessment: the broad comprehensive nature of U.S. sanctions on Iran is likely to remain intact over the long term regardless of near-term relief, because significant portions of that architecture — including designations related to Iran’s support for terrorism and its ballistic missile program — require conditions that Iran is almost certainly unable to meet.
The IRGC’s Foreign Terrorist Organization designation is a particularly high threshold. De-listing the IRGC would require the administration to certify that it no longer meets the criteria for designation, a determination that would be politically untenable and legally difficult to sustain given the IRGC’s continuing involvement in terrorism, ballistic missile procurement, and Iran’s oil sector. Congress could make clear that any such attempt would trigger intense oversight.
Similarly, the ballistic missile program is not on the negotiating agenda at all, meaning the administration could not plausibly certify that Iran had ceased ballistic missile development as a basis for relief. Waivers issued under these circumstances would require public justification, creating accountability mechanisms Congress can activate.
The greater cause for concern is that the administration could take a position of non-enforcement on sanctions. Even without formal waivers, an administration that signals it will not pursue enforcement creates de facto relief, and allowing the Iran Sanctions Act to sunset at year’s end would amplify that signal. That is the area where Congress needs to act proactively rather than reactively.
Albright offered an assessment of how the current MOU is likely to unfold based on Iran’s track record with prior agreements. The pattern is consistent: Iran uses the MOU structure to delay, generate confusing and contradictory signals, and push negotiations into granular technical details that consume time and obscure the central question. The result — unless the United States gets ahead of the dynamic — is that Iran ends up giving up far less than the U.S. expected when the process began.
He observed that Iran will be particularly adept at exploiting procedural requirements: demanding that inspection modalities be defined before any access is granted, raising questions about who will protect inspectors, and using legalistic objections to delay each step. All of these maneuvers are designed to run out the 60-day clock while Iran collects its oil revenues and the pressure to reach an agreement mounts on the American side.
Albright noted one genuine wildcard: President Trump’s unpredictability may actually be a complicating factor for Iran’s negotiators. Iranian officials have decades of experience managing deliberate American negotiating strategies; they are less practiced at navigating a counterpart who might respond to delay with a resumption of strikes rather than another round of talks. That dynamic, Albright suggested, is one reason not to remove the military option from the table during the negotiating period.
“If Congress is going to take any action, it needs to get some sort of understanding from the administration as to why it’s chosen to do what it’s doing. If this is part of a maximum pressure campaign, it’s unclear to me how that is. It seems like maximum appeasement in my view.”
FDD Action is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization that works directly with policymakers to advocate for a robust U.S. foreign policy — one that strengthens U.S. national security, does damage to America’s adversaries, and supports allies and partners. FDD Action serves as a trusted resource for congressional offices and executive branch policymakers navigating complex national security challenges, leveraging a team with decades of experience on Capitol Hill and in the policy arena.