It’s a familiar refrain for Republican lawmakers when they’re looking to dodge questions about one of President Donald Trump’s controversial social media posts: “I haven’t seen it.”
But that asserted ignorance took on a whole new meaning Monday, as lawmakers faced questions about a potential offramp to the Iran war.
Republican senators largely welcomed word of a step toward a peace deal between the two nations, more than 100 days after the president first ordered strikes. Contained within their enthusiasm, however, was a dose of skepticism.
“I’m withholding comment,” Sen. Roger Wicker — the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee — told reporters Monday.
“I haven’t seen it yet, but hey, I think getting a cease fire is great,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said.
And as Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., fielding repeated questions, he said, facetiously, “I don’t know if I mentioned this, but I haven’t seen the documents.”
The curt comments came hours after Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf digitally signed a memorandum of understanding.
The agreements, according to U.S. officials, provides for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the naval blockade, and lays out a structure for future negotiations as well as how the relationship between the countries will operate in the future.
Beyond those toplines, however, the details are less than clear.
U.S. officials said the full memorandum of understanding would be released “in the next 24 to 48 hours,” leaving lawmakers with little information.
That has allowed the Trump administration to avoid any outright accusations of a bad deal. But the void has also given Iran state media the opportunity to shape the conversation with its own reports about the agreement — including the potential of $300 billion in reconstruction aid for the Islamic State.
That potential funding drew concern from Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“I can’t imagine how I would support giving them $300 billion,” Scott said.
In fact, not giving Iran any U.S. dollars was one of the components Scott said he wanted in the final deal.
“My expectation is no nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles, don’t support proxies, and no American money,” he said.
Another Republican, when pressed about the aid reports, left the door open. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said his top priority is that Iran has no ability to enrich uranium.
“It doesn’t matter to me about the money, as long as they get that right,” he told MS NOW.
But even on that priority, reports from the Iran side indicate that most questions related to Iran’s uranium would be settled — or handled — at a later date.
The vague parameters of what the deal could entail have left lawmakers of both parties in a bit of limbo.
Graham said he wants to see what the deal “actually is,” noting that “the way Iran describes it, it’s awful.”
“The way we describe it makes sense to me,” he continued.
Recommended
And Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, when asked by MS NOW what he thought of the deal, said simply, “I think I better read it on Friday before I comment on it.”
The fact that the Trump administration hasn’t released the details yet is landing conspicuously with some Republicans.
“If it’s a secret deal, then how can I take it seriously?” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters.
Democrats were even more dubious.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters “we shouldn’t fall for this.”
“Iran says that there are things in the deal that are diametrically opposed to what the president says,” Murphy said. “I’m not gonna believe there’s an agreement until we see it.”
The specter of the Obama-era Iran nuclear agreement has long hung over the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran. The 2015 deal to constrain Iran’s nuclear program has been a frequent target of Trump and Republicans writ large.
The GOP, in particular, went after so-called “pallets of cash” sent to Tehran at the time — which were intended to settle a financial dispute over Iranian funds that the U.S. froze decades before.
As a political candidate, Trump lambasted the Iran deal, and as president, he ultimately scrapped the deal during his first term.
But will this pending new deal in fact be better?
Graham suggested it could be — provided his push to bar future nuclear enrichment is achieved.
“Everybody would have been different if they had no enrichment capability,” he said of the Obama-era agreement.
And Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said he couldn’t “imagine that President Trump would settle for the same agreement that President Obama did.”
Of course, lawmakers could be left waiting for some time. The U.S. and Iran are allotting nearly two months for further talks once the memorandum is signed, as is being forecasted, this Friday.
Jack Fitzpatrick and Julia Jester contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.