WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s emerging deal to end the Iran war is drawing heavy criticism from some fellow Republicans who favor a harder line against the government in Tehran and fear a lost opportunity to finally rein in a longtime Mideast nemesis.
The deal the Republican president had said was “largely negotiated” has left a range of lawmakers, former Cabinet members and conservative analysts wondering aloud whether the terms as currently known will render the conflict all “for naught.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the president’s decision to strike Iran was the “most consequential” of his second term and that he should not let up now.
“If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz wrote Saturday on the social media platform X. It was in reaction to Trump’s update after he had spoken with the leaders of Israel and other U.S. allies in the region.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who also is close to Trump, panned any deal that would leave Iran perceived as being a dominant force in the region and in which it would retain its ability to destroy oil infrastructure throughout the Gulf.
Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned the merit of a proposed 60-day ceasefire, saying it would be a “disaster.”
PHOTOS: Republicans who have drawn a hard line on Iran pan Trump’s emerging proposal to end the war
“Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!” said Wicker, R-Miss.
Trump says it will take time to ‘get it right’
Trump, who has said he only makes good deals and detests being seen as not having the upper hand in any negotiation, dismissed objections to a deal that he said was not “even fully negotiated yet.”
“So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about,” he said on his social media platform.
Trump said the deal he and his representatives are working out is “THE EXACT OPPOSITE” of a nuclear pact that Iran agreed to under the Democratic Obama administration. Trump pulled out of that agreement and has been trying to iron out a new one.
“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!” Trump said.
He added that a U.S. military blockade of Iranian ports would remain “in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed.”
Some support for Trump came from Capitol Hill, too.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, often a thorn in the president’s side, defended the White House’s approach.
“War virtually always ends with negotiations,” Paul wrote on X. “Critics of President Trump’s peace negotiations should give President Trump the space to find an American First solution.”
Under the proposal, the war would come to an end and Iran would reopen the strait and give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, with the details and timelines to be worked out during a later 60-day window, regional officials told The Associated Press on Sunday.
Critics air objections as details trickle out
Polls show the war, which began when the United States and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, is unpopular with the American public and has cost U.S. taxpayers at least $29 billion, as of this month. Thirteen service members have been killed during the operation.
Trump initially said the war would be over in four weeks to six weeks, but the standoff continues. Iran’s closure of the strait, through which about 20% of global energy supplies transit, has jolted the world economy and sent prices for gasoline and other goods climbing.
Mike Pompeo, one of Trump’s first-term secretaries of state, asserted on Saturday that the emerging deal seemed to him to be the same as the Obama-era one from which Trump withdrew.
“Not remotely America First,” Pompeo said on X, prompting a profanity-laced rejoinder from Steven Cheung, the White House director of communications.
John Bolton, a national security adviser in the first term who has become a critic of the president, said the emerging plan details seemed to favor the Iranian government.
“If news reports about the impending Iran deal are correct, the ayatollahs will have won a significant victory,” Bolton wrote Sunday on X. “They will be back on the road to nuclear weapons, supporting global terrorism and repressing their own people.”
Rubio says a nuclear Iran is ‘not going to happen’
Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back on Sunday during a diplomatic mission in India, telling reporters at a news conference that no president has been stronger against Iran than Trump.
“His commitment to that principle that they’ll never have a nuclear weapon shouldn’t be questioned by anybody,” Rubio said. “And the idea that somehow this president, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd. That’s just not going to happen.”
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Trump antagonist who had pushed legislation to restrain the president’s ability to wage war against Iran, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that while the terms are not yet fully known, “if Lindsey Graham and Ted Cuz are crashing out last night, I’d say it’s probably a pretty good deal.”
Massie will leave Congress in January after incurring Trump’s wrath and losing his GOP primary last week to a Trump-backed challenger.
