Washington: US Vice President JD Vance has sought to clarify growing controversy surrounding reports that Iran could gain access to a proposed $300 billion reconstruction and development fund under the emerging US-Iran peace agreement, stressing that the money would not come from American taxpayers and would only become available if Tehran complies with strict conditions.
According to Vance, the proposed fund is not a direct payment, aid package or war compensation program. Instead, it is being designed as a private investment vehicle intended to encourage long-term economic development in Iran if a final peace and nuclear agreement is successfully implemented. Companies and investors from Gulf countries, Asia, Africa, South America and other regions are expected to provide the financing rather than governments.
The proposal has emerged as part of broader negotiations aimed at ending hostilities between Washington and Tehran, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and establishing a framework to address concerns over Iran’s nuclear activities. Vance emphasized that Iran would not automatically receive access to the fund simply by signing an agreement. Any economic benefits would depend on verifiable Iranian compliance with commitments related to nuclear restrictions, international inspections and regional security issues.
Reports indicate that more than half of the proposed investment commitments have already been discussed with private-sector participants. The fund is expected to focus on rebuilding and modernizing sectors such as energy infrastructure, logistics networks, industrial facilities, transportation systems and manufacturing. Supporters argue that economic development could help stabilize the region while creating incentives for long-term cooperation.
Vance has repeatedly rejected claims that the United States would transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran. He stated that American taxpayers would not finance the initiative and that participation by investors would depend on Iran meeting its obligations and becoming more integrated into the global economy. He also stressed that sanctions relief and investment access would be tied to compliance rather than granted in advance.
The proposed fund has nevertheless generated political debate in Washington. Critics have questioned whether providing Iran with access to large-scale investment could strengthen the country’s economy without guaranteeing lasting changes in its behavior. Several lawmakers have called for greater transparency and have demanded the publication of the full agreement before supporting any implementation measures.
Supporters of the negotiations argue that the fund should be viewed as an investment mechanism rather than a financial reward. They contend that economic incentives could encourage Iran to maintain compliance with any future agreement while helping restore stability to global energy markets and shipping routes.
The final structure of the fund, including how it would be managed, who would oversee investments and what conditions Iran would need to satisfy, remains under negotiation. Officials from both sides are expected to continue technical discussions in the coming weeks as they work toward a comprehensive agreement.
