Trump-Iran Peace Deal Sparks Bipartisan Backlash

A proposed agreement aimed at ending the conflict between the United States and Iran has triggered criticism from across the political spectrum after details of a draft memorandum of understanding suggested the arrangement could leave Iran in a stronger position than before the war.

The Trump administration released the text of the preliminary agreement on Wednesday ahead of an expected signing in Switzerland on Friday. While the document outlines steps to halt hostilities, it leaves several major issues unresolved, including the future of Iran’s nuclear program, which would be addressed during a second round of negotiations scheduled to take place over the following 60 days.

According to multiple reports citing a U.S. official who briefed reporters during a conference call, both countries would agree to end military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon. The proposal would also provide Iran with access to $300 billion in private investment funds for projects such as rebuilding infrastructure. In addition, the U.S. Treasury Department would immediately grant waivers for Iranian oil exports and has committed to lifting sanctions and releasing frozen Iranian assets as part of a final agreement.

The official said the United States would end its naval blockade around Iran within 30 days. Iran, in turn, would make what was described as its “best efforts” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz without charging transit fees, although Tehran has not ruled out imposing charges for safe passage in the future. Negotiators would then have 60 days to finalize arrangements concerning Iran’s nuclear activities and other unresolved matters.

Reaction from conservatives was swift and often sharply critical. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana described Trump’s handling of the conflict as “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” arguing that Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain unchecked while the country stands to gain significant economic benefits. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said the framework appeared to be a “disaster” that failed to accomplish key objectives previously outlined by the administration, including dismantling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities and ending its support for militant groups. Former Vice President Mike Pence said the agreement was “much bigger than a mistake,” expressing particular concern over sanctions relief being offered at the outset. Radio host Erick Erickson highlighted past remarks by Trump criticizing the Obama-era Iran deal, including statements in which Trump argued he would not have returned money to Iran during negotiations.

Democrats also voiced skepticism. Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned how the arrangement benefits Americans, saying Iran appeared poised to emerge in a much stronger financial position. Tommy Vietor, a former Obama administration spokesperson and co-host of Pod Save America, argued the agreement leaves Israel increasingly dependent on Trump’s decisions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly stated that Israel is not a party to the deal and has expressed disappointment, particularly regarding provisions that would halt Israeli military actions in Lebanon. Senator Chris Murphy suggested reports indicate the arrangement amounts to the United States effectively paying Iran billions of dollars to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Prominent figures within Trump’s political base also expressed concerns. Fox News host Mark Levin said he hoped he was misunderstanding the details, noting that uncertainty stemmed from limited public information about the memorandum. Trump ally Steve Bannon argued against easing sanctions or facilitating large-scale financial access for Iran, saying the United States should maintain existing restrictions and avoid providing economic assistance.

Foreign policy analysts were similarly critical. Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, and Firas Maksad, the firm’s managing director for the Middle East and North Africa, described the agreement in a Foreign Affairs column as Trump’s most significant foreign policy error. They argued that the likely terms fall well short of Washington’s original goals and leave Iran’s government and regional influence largely intact despite the conflict.

Not all reactions were negative. Senator Lindsey Graham said he was pleased by the prospect of reopening the Strait of Hormuz but emphasized that he would closely monitor upcoming negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and other issues. Graham also suggested Congress should review any eventual nuclear agreement.

Trump defended the framework while attending the G7 summit in France, insisting it “achieves everything we set out to accomplish and much more.” He said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon remained the central objective and cited concerns about avoiding broader economic turmoil as a factor in supporting the deal. Trump also defended allowing Iran to retain some ballistic missile capabilities, saying, “I mean, they have to have some, because other people have some.” He acknowledged the agreement could still face obstacles but said he believed both sides wanted to complete it.

Pope Leo XIV welcomed the diplomatic breakthrough, describing it on X as “an encouraging result of patient work in dialogue and negotiation,” though he did not comment on whether the agreement ultimately favors either side.