At a time when the US-Iranian negotiations are accelerating towards an understanding that may redraw the balances of the Middle East, a sharp wave of objections has erupted within the US Republican Party against President Donald Trump, amid accusations that he is giving Tehran “what it failed to get with war,” and is reopening the way for Iran financially and militarily through an agreement that raises concerns for Washington’s allies in the region, especially Israel and the Gulf states.
According to a report by journalist Lauren Fedor in the Financial Times, over the weekend, Trump faced unprecedented criticism from prominent Republican figures due to his efforts to reach an agreement with Iran, after a number of party members warned that the US president was “ready to make very significant concessions.”
These criticisms came after reports that American and Iranian negotiators were close to an agreement that included providing facilities to Iran, in exchange for extending the ceasefire, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and laying the foundations for additional negotiations related to dismantling the Iranian nuclear program.
The report indicated that efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the war have escalated over the past week, amid fears that Trump is preparing to resume military strikes against Iran.
According to sources familiar with the details of the proposed agreement, the understanding includes a commitment to discuss Tehran’s either reducing the enrichment rate of its highly enriched uranium stock or handing it over, in exchange for gradual US approval to ease sanctions and release Iranian assets frozen abroad, according to the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement.
But even before the details of the agreement were fully revealed, influential Republican voices began attacking Trump’s approaches. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, known for his closeness to the US President, warned on social media that any agreement that allows the Iranian regime “to survive and become a greater force over time” will lead to “pouring gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq.”
Graham added: “I am personally skeptical of the idea that Iran cannot be deterred from threatening the Strait of Hormuz, or that the region alone can protect itself from Iranian military capabilities.”
In turn, Republican Senator Ted Cruz expressed his “deep concern” about the reports related to the agreement, considering that Trump’s decision to launch strikes against Iran was “the most important decision of his second term.” He added: “If the end result of all this is the survival of an Iranian regime run by Islamists who chant death to America, and at the same time obtains billions of dollars, and is able to enrich uranium, develop a nuclear weapon, and actually control the Strait of Hormuz, then this will be a catastrophic mistake.”
Republican Senator Roger Wicker, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also attacked the common understanding, considering that “a 60-day ceasefire based on the belief that Iran will negotiate in good faith would be a disaster,” adding that everything achieved militarily “will be in vain.”
As for former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who took office during Trump’s first term, he described the plan as “very far from the principle of America First.” He said in a post on the “X” platform: “It is simple: open the strait, prevent Iran from accessing funds, and destroy enough of its capabilities so that it is no longer able to threaten our allies in the region.”
These criticisms sparked anger within the White House, as US administration communications director Stephen Cheung responded violently to Pompeo, demanding that he “shut his mouth and leave the real work to the professionals.” Trump campaign advisor Alex Brusevitz also accused Senator Cruz of trying to “undermine the president and his administration,” while Cruz responded that “promoters of appeasing Iran are not helping the president at all.”
The newspaper believed that this public confrontation reveals the extent of the political challenges that Trump faces as he tries to maintain the unity of the Republican Party before the midterm elections, at a time when opinion polls indicate a decline in his popularity due to the war and the American economic situation.
In the same context, Republican Senator Thom Tillis questioned the feasibility of the agreement, telling CNN: “Eleven weeks ago we were told that the Iranian defenses had been completely destroyed, and that it was only a matter of time before the nuclear materials were controlled. So how are we now talking about the possibility of these materials remaining inside Iran?”
On the other hand, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended Trump, stressing that “no president has been more stringent than Trump toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” He added: “To say that this president, after everything he has proven himself willing to do, will sign an agreement that gives Iran greater nuclear power is ridiculous.”
This division within Washington reflects the amount of anxiety that accompanies the potential “Hormuz deal,” not only because of the Iranian nuclear file, but also because many have come to believe that the aftermath of the war may be politically and strategically more dangerous than the war itself.
