Iran has become a lose-lose wedge issue for President Donald Trump; there’s no way he can get around alienating part of his coalition over it. When he launched his war on Iran, he infuriated the isolationist wing of his party who believed his promise that he’d start “no new wars.” Now his scramble to end the same war is alienating the hawkish sector of his party — who believe that Trump’s agreement with Iran to end the conflict looks like a humiliating surrender.
This new phase is going to be particularly difficult for the president. Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran on Wednesday night that delivered some significant wins for Iran. Democrats are going to pile on and echo GOP criticisms that the U.S. just lost a war to a less formidable adversary. But it’s still a bare-bones agreement meant to set the stage for more negotiations ahead of a final deal. The temptation for Trump to try to avoid embarrassment by withdrawing from negotiations — or acting foolishly stubborn during them — will be high. And he’s not a man known to resist temptation.
Trump undoubtedly feels that familiar pressure that one U.S. president after another has encountered following every protracted, failed war.
Hawkish Republican lawmakers and right-wing commentators have been panning the Trump administration based on reports on what was expected to be in the U.S.’ memorandum of understanding with Iran this week. Iran hawks were concerned the agreement offers unacceptable concessions to an enemy — especially for a provision providing $300 billion to Iran for reconstruction.
“Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., posted to X on Wednesday. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.” He added, “13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
Ouch. Considering the past couple of decades have included U.S. military catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s got to sting.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told Semafor that he “can’t imagine how I would support giving them $300 billion.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. — an Iran hawk and staunch Trump ally — has an interest in keeping the pressure on Trump, but also refraining from being too harsh. Here’s how he threaded that needle in a comment to Politico this week ahead of Trump signing it: “The MOU being described by us sounds really very good; the MOU being described by Iran sounds awful.” And on X, Graham called on Vice President JD Vance to defend a finalized agreement before Congress, which he’s saying must vote on the agreement.
Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen called the plan’s reconstruction provision a “disaster,” and likened it to offering the “Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany while the Nazis were still in power.” Fox News host Mark Levin wrote on X that the memorandum “REQUIRES SERIOUS CHANGES IF NOT OUTRIGHT ABANDONMENT.”
Zeeshan Aleem
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.