Vice President JD Vance is defending President Donald Trump’s agreement with Iran against criticism from fellow Republicans, arguing that the arrangement bears little resemblance to the 2015 nuclear accord negotiated by the Obama administration and instead reflects a dramatically different strategic reality.

Speaking about the agreement, Vance contended that the circumstances surrounding the two deals could not be compared because Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has already been dismantled and the new framework bars Tehran from enriching uranium.

“You have to remember, in 2015 Iran had built a sophisticated nuclear weapons program with a nuclear weapon stockpile. So the perspective that we came at as the United States was, ‘You already have a really nice nuclear program; we’re going to bribe you with American money in order to stop it,'” Vance said.

He contrasted that approach with the Trump administration’s current position, arguing that Washington is negotiating from a position of leverage rather than trying to halt an active nuclear buildup.

“Our perspective — and where we’re coming at it — is, ‘We already destroyed your nuclear program; and so if you promise and show verifiable pathways to not rebuild it, then we are willing to give you some sanctions relief, and things like that.'”

Vance went on to outline what he described as several key distinctions between the two agreements, maintaining that the new deal imposes stricter limitations on Tehran’s nuclear capabilities while avoiding financial concessions made under the earlier accord.

“Now, there are all these substantive differences as well. The Obama nuclear deal allowed enrichment; ours will not,” Vance said.

He further argued that the Trump agreement takes a tougher stance on Iran’s nuclear materials.

“The Obama deal allowed the accumulation of stockpiled weapons-grade material. Ours is actually leading to the destruction of that stockpile of enriched material,” he continued.

Vance also highlighted what he said was a major financial difference between the two arrangements.

“The Obama deal gave them over a billion dollars of American money. The deal gives them $0 of American money,” Vance said.

Summing up his defense of the agreement, the vice president maintained that the most significant distinction is the position from which the United States negotiated and the support the deal has received from regional allies.

“A lot of substantive differences, but I think the most important differences are where we’re coming at it from: a position of strength, and the fact that our [Persian] Gulf Coast partners love this deal.”