When key Republicans in the U.S. Capitol first learned the details of President Donald Trump's deal with Iran, some were so stunned they simply did not want to talk about it. But within 24 hours, a significant bloc of Republican senators began openly questioning the terms of Trump's negotiations with Iran — many calling on him to completely change his strategy, CNN reports, writes UNN.
Details
Some, mostly those not burdened by re-election campaigns, fiercely criticize Trump's deal. Outgoing Senator Bill Cassidy summed it up on Thursday: "Iran has become stronger, we have become weaker." Texas Senator John Cornyn, who is also leaving Congress, said: "Everything I have heard causes me concern."
"It's hard to say the deal made Iran's position worse and the United States' position better," said Senator Lisa Murkowski, adding later: "A lot of money has been spent, people have died, yet Iran is in the same position as before."
However, the most significant Republican voices are those who have rarely, if ever, deviated from the Trump party line, the publication notes.
"The growing chorus of Republican alarm serves as a warning sign for Trump: without substantial changes, any final deal with Iran may not pass a vote — even in a Republican-controlled Congress. Some doubt a final agreement will be reached at all, leaving Trump and Republicans in a difficult position that could last for years and cost their party dearly in November," the publication states.
According to one Republican senator, there is "strong frustration" in the Senate regarding the party dynamics. The senator also assessed the prospects for a final deal pessimistically, stating they consider it unlikely that Iran will actually agree to a final agreement.
Vance postpones trip to Switzerland for negotiations with Iran on nuclear program19.06.26, 06:58
Senate Majority Leader John Thune initially said little about the U.S. president's deal, telling reporters he was still "studying" the details, later adding that he wanted to "ensure that financial incentives are conditioned on Iran's actions," especially regarding its nuclear weapons. Later that day, he called it "a step in the right direction" but noted he views it as a first step.
"All of this points to a weakening of support within the party, even among loyal supporters of the president, during one of the most difficult periods of Trump's presidency, with growing Republican discontent over his tariff project, his campaign of revenge, and, most recently, the fight for the intelligence chief position. And this could complicate the White House's efforts to achieve much before the midterm elections, including the looming fight over an expensive bill to fund military operations regarding Iran, which Republican leaders hope to pass this summer," the publication states.
As the White House tried to convince everyone of the deal's merits, many senators said they were awaiting a detailed briefing from the administration. On Thursday afternoon, the White House held its first conference call with members of Congress to discuss the details, briefing congressional leadership and leading lawmakers from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a source familiar with the situation said.
Also on Thursday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance downplayed the negative reaction from Capitol Hill.
"I think I would say to any critic: first, trust the President of the United States a little. The idea that he is going to make a deal that is disadvantageous to the American people is absurd," Vance said at a White House briefing, adding later: "I don't think our public rhetoric has been chaotic."
Some senior officials, such as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, personally contacted some of Trump's negotiators.
However, skeptical allies noted, in particular, the absence of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio from public statements about the deal — a hawk opposed to Iran who is widely trusted by Republicans in Washington.
"Making JD Vance the face of the deal instead of Marco Rubio will not increase Republicans' confidence that this is a good deal," said a former senior Trump administration official, echoing privately expressed concerns from lawmakers that the administration is easing pressure on Iran just when it should be maximizing it. "The Iranians aren't going to do anything, we'll give them a bunch of money, after that they won't give anything back, and you'll be blamed for making a bad deal."
As the publication writes, even Graham acknowledged on Thursday that "some criticism [of the memorandum of understanding] is valid."