Vice President JD Vance announced Monday that the United States and Iran have "already signed" a peace agreement ending their three-and-a-half-month war, signed "digitally" on Sunday, with a formal ceremony scheduled for Friday in Switzerland.

Vance made the rounds on morning television to lay out the administration's case for the deal, pushing back against critics in his own party and against reports from Tehran that he said distorted the agreement's terms. The full text, he said, would be released later this week.

The claim marks a dramatic turn in a conflict that has roiled global energy markets and raised the specter of a wider Middle Eastern conflagration. But the details that remain unresolved, from the status of the Strait of Hormuz to the mechanics of a $300 billion reconstruction fund, suggest the hardest questions may still lie ahead.

Ships moving, but questions remain on the strait

President Trump posted on Truth Social Monday morning that movement had already begun. The New York Post reported Trump wrote:

"Ships are starting to move, many loaded up with Oil, out of the Strait of Hormuz."

Trump previously indicated the strait would open on Friday and said the passage would remain "permenantly" fee-free, his spelling. He was expected to meet with G7 leaders in France this week to discuss the logistics of demining the waterway.

But Iran's Foreign Ministry offered a more hedged picture. Spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Monday that Iran would not collect tolls on ships passing through the strait, then added a caveat, suggesting Tehran could still charge fees "in exchange for the services that are provided."

What services? Baghaei did not say. And that ambiguity sits at the center of one of the deal's biggest unresolved tensions.

Vance, speaking to CNBC, acknowledged the gap plainly:

"There are a lot of very important details to figure out that we're actually going to sit at the table and discuss together."

He added that the administration's expectation was that "the strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for the long term" and that technical negotiations would work through the specifics. Whether Sunday's digital signing triggered a 60-day window for those talks, or whether the clock starts Friday at the formal ceremony, remained unclear.

The $300 billion question

The sharpest intra-party friction centers on a reported $300 billion reconstruction fund that Iran could access if it meets its obligations under the agreement. Vance confirmed the fund's existence during an appearance on "CBS Mornings," telling viewers:

"That's the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the [Gulf Cooperation Council], so long as they honor their end of the obligation."

He was more pointed on ABC's "Good Morning America," stressing that "not a single dollar of American money will go to Iran." The money, he said, was "fundamentally sanctions relief", not a direct transfer from Washington.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a strong Trump ally, was unconvinced. Graham has emerged as one of the deal's most vocal Republican critics, warning on social media:

"The idea of a $300 billion reconstruction fund, given who is in charge of Iran, seems to be tone deaf. It would be akin to a Marshall Plan for Germany with the Nazis still in charge."

That comparison drew a direct response from Vance, who told reporters:

"I caution Lindsey Graham and anybody else not to believe the hard-liner propaganda in Iran, but to believe what's actually in the agreement."

He followed up with a promise of transparency:

"We'll be releasing the text this week, and what everybody will see is that Iran doesn't get a dime of money unless they perform their obligations. The money that we're talking about is fundamentally sanctions relief. We're not giving them American money."

What the text will need to show

Vance's assurances rest on a document no one outside the negotiating teams has read yet. The agreement text had not been released at the time of his Monday media blitz. That leaves several critical questions hanging.

What are the exact benchmarks Iran must hit on ending its uranium enrichment program before any financial benefit flows? Who administers the $300 billion reconstruction fund, the Gulf Cooperation Council directly, some international body, or a joint mechanism? What happens if Iran takes partial steps but falls short on full compliance?

The distinction Vance drew between "sanctions relief" and "American money" matters, but it is a distinction that will need to survive contact with the agreement's fine print. Sanctions relief, by definition, unlocks economic value. Whether that value flows through GCC investment or direct payments, the practical effect is money reaching Tehran's government, a government that, as Graham noted, has not changed hands.

Vance's framing also leaves open whether the deal was a final peace agreement, a preliminary framework, or something in between. He described it as ending the war. But the acknowledgment that "a lot of very important details" remain to be worked out in technical negotiations suggests the signed document may be closer to a framework than a fully executed treaty.

The formal ceremony and what comes next

The formal signing ceremony is set for Friday in Switzerland. Geneva served as the dateline for reporting on the deal, though the exact venue for Friday's event was not specified.

Between now and then, the administration faces pressure from multiple directions. Hawks like Graham want ironclad proof that reconstruction money cannot flow to a regime that has not reformed. Energy markets want clarity on the Strait of Hormuz timeline. And Iran's own public statements, with Baghaei's hint about "service" fees, suggest Tehran may be reading the deal differently than Washington.

Trump's meeting with G7 leaders in France this week adds another layer. Demining the Strait of Hormuz is a massive logistical undertaking. It requires coordination, funding, and time. Announcing that ships are "starting to move" is one thing. Guaranteeing safe, toll-free passage through one of the world's most strategically sensitive waterways is another.

Vance deserves credit for making the case publicly and taking direct questions. His willingness to engage Graham's criticism head-on, rather than dismissing it, reflects a seriousness about selling the deal on its merits. But selling and proving are different things.

Trust, but verify, with the text

The administration says the agreement text drops this week. Good. Because the gap between what Vance described on Monday morning television and what Graham fears, and what Baghaei hinted, is wide enough to drive a supertanker through.

If the deal genuinely conditions every dollar of reconstruction access on verified dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, with no American taxpayer exposure, it would represent a historic achievement. If the conditions are vague, the verification mechanisms weak, or the "services" loophole in the strait language exploitable, then Graham's Marshall Plan comparison will look less like alarmism and more like prophecy.

Three and a half months of war is long enough. American families and the global economy have paid a price. Ending this conflict on terms that protect American interests and deny Iran a nuclear weapon is the right goal. But the right goal pursued through a weak agreement is worse than no agreement at all, because it gives the appearance of peace while leaving the underlying threat intact.

Release the text. Let Congress read it. Let the public read it. The strength of this deal will be measured not by how it sounds on morning television, but by what it says on the page, and whether Tehran honors it once the cameras leave Geneva.