Topline<\/p>\n
The U.S. deal to end the war in Iran was widely panned across the political spectrum as heavily favorable to Iran, with critics saying the deal leaves the regime more powerful than it was before the war\u2014but some Republicans have begun voicing tentative support, saying it\u2019s better than continuing the unpopular war just months from the midterm elections.<\/p>\n
President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the G7 Summit on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France. Photo by Anna Moneymaker\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n
Getty ImagesKey Facts<\/p>\n
The text of the so-called memorandum of understanding, signed by President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian overnight Wednesday, is light on details and leaves many important aspects\u2014such as the fate of Iran\u2019s nuclear program\u2014to a second round of negotiations over a 60-day period after the initial agreement is signed.<\/p>\n
Among the immediate and most impactful provisions, the U.S. will lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports, while Iran will use \u201cits best efforts\u201d to reopen the Strait of Hormuz without tolls \u201cfor 60 days only.\u201d<\/p>\n
The deal gives Iran access to $300 billion in private funds toward investments in Iran, including the rebuilding of its infrastructure.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Treasury Department would issue immediate waivers on exports of Iranian oil, and has committed to lifting sanctions and unfreezing Iranian assets in foreign accounts in a final agreement. <\/p>\n
Republican War Supporters Who Back Trump\u2019s Deal<\/p>\n
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., posted Wednesday<\/a> the agreement \u201cwill be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the Strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop,\u201d after previously expressing reservations about offering Iran any concessions. He said whether the U.S. can reach an \u201cacceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying.\u201d <\/p>\n Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Semafor the deal recognizes \u201creality and oftentimes that\u2019s not fun to do.\u201d<\/p>\n Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said the agreement is better than sending in ground troops: \u201cthat would be terrible, so this is better,\u201d he told Semafor.<\/p>\n Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, echoed Trump in telling CNN on Wednesday that the U.S. couldn\u2019t force Iran to give up all of its ballistic missiles, after Trump acknowledged Wednesday its stockpile hasn\u2019t been depleted by the U.S. military, contradicting repeated previous claims from the administration. Marshall said \u201cI prefer that they not [have missiles],\u201d but \u201cthey have to be able to defend themselves,\u201d adding that \u201cyou\u2019re never going to get them short of boots on the ground of surrendering everything.\u201d<\/p>\n Critics Who Say Trump\u2019s Deal \u2018The Least Bad Exit\u2019<\/p>\n Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told Fox Business on Thursday, \u201cI actually support the agreement and bringing the war to an end,\u201d but that it\u2019s \u201cnot as good as\u201d the Obama-era agreement with Iran.<\/p>\n Robert Malley, the lead negotiator on the Obama-era Iran deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) said<\/a> Trump\u2019s deal is \u201cfar preferable to any of the alternatives on offer,\u201d adding, \u201cI don\u2019t see much value in comparing the MOU and the JCPOA. They are fundamentally different agreements that emerged from starkly different contexts.\u201d<\/p>\n The Financial Times editorial board called the agreement<\/a> \u201cthe least bad exit from Trump\u2019s war of choice\u201d and \u201ca welcome step that should at least put a lid on Donald Trump\u2019s reckless war of choice.\u201d<\/p>\n Criticism From The Right: \u2018Utterly Indefensible\u2019<\/p>\n Calling Trump\u2019s handling of the conflict \u201cthe worst foreign policy blunder in decades,\u201d Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., tweeted<\/a> Wednesday, \u201cReagan is rolling over in his grave. Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz now works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.\u201d Cassidy lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger last month. <\/p>\n Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Semafor<\/a> he\u2019s \u201cconcerned about\u201d the agreement, adding, \u201cI\u2019ve heard it described as an intermission, unfortunately leaving Iran with the capability to rebuild its arsenal and continue enriching uranium.\u201d (Trump, after claiming before the agreement was made public that Iran would allow the U.S. to extract its uranium, downplayed Iran\u2019s enrichment program, telling reporters Wednesday \u201cit\u2019s not actually valuable\u201d and is buried deep underground.)<\/p>\n Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on his podcast Wednesday that it\u2019s an \u201cincredibly foolish idea\u201d and \u201cutterly indefensible\u201d to give Iran $300 billion, and told Semafor in an article published Thursday \u201cit\u2019s fair to say\u201d he\u2019s not a fan of the agreement.<\/p>\n Former Vice President Mike Pence, expressed support<\/a> for the war initially, but said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday, the deal is \u201cmuch bigger than a mistake,\u201d adding that he\u2019s particularly concerned about \u201cthese immediate concessions, particularly sanctions wavered right out of the gate.\u201d<\/p>\n Conservative podcaster and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, who supported Trump\u2019s attacks on Iran, told Fox News on Wednesday the agreement appears to be a \u201cdisaster that does not achieve any of the actual goals set by the administration at the beginning,\u201d including eliminating Iran\u2019s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, requiring Iran to end support of terrorist groups and open the Strait of Hormuz toll-free, and leaving U.S. sanctions against Iran in place until it makes progress to meet its end of the agreement.<\/p>\n New York Times neoconservative columnist Bret Stephens, who supported the war initially, wrote<\/a> that the \u201chard men of Tehran appear to have scored a decisive victory over the vain man of Washington,\u201d accusing Trump of betraying Israel, the Iranian people and Americans who supported the war, and calling the deal \u201ca debacle.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump ally Steve Bannon said on his podcast \u201cwe can\u2019t get in the business of giving these guys all this money and giving them access. We got the sanctions, keep the sanctions on, don\u2019t let them sell any oil, don\u2019t put in $300 billion or let anybody do it . . . I think we\u2019re looking at this cockeyed, we shouldn\u2019t be doing anything for these people.\u201d<\/p>\n Criticism From the Left: \u2018Paying Iran Billions\u2019<\/p>\n Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told MeidasTouch<\/a> Wednesday that Iran would \u201cend up in much better financial shape than they were on the other side of it. I\u2019m still waiting for the part that explains how the American people are better off.\u201d<\/p>\n Former Obama administration spokesperson and Pod Save America co-host Tommy Vietor said<\/a> Tuesday the outcome has left Israel \u201ccompletely isolated and dependent on Trump\u2019s mood on any given day,\u201d as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel is not involved in the deal and has made clear he\u2019s disappointed with the outcome, particularly the requirement to end Israel\u2019s attacks on Lebanon. <\/p>\n Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told reporters<\/a> Tuesday, reports about the deal suggest \u201cthat it is a pretty simple transaction: we are paying Iran billions to reopen the Strait. Period.\u201d<\/p>\n Other Reactions<\/p>\n Fox New host Brian Kilmeade said Wednesday \u201cit doesn\u2019t look like Iran has been brought to its knees . . . at this moment, it seems like Iran got a lot out of it that many people weren\u2019t expecting.\u201d<\/p>\n Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, and Firas Maksad, managing director for Middle East and North Africa at Eurasia Group, said the deal is \u201cTrump\u2019s most consequential foreign policy mistake\u201d in a column Wednesday for Foreign Affairs<\/a>. \u201cIts likely terms fall far short of what Washington hoped the war would achieve,\u201d they wrote. \u201cIran has emerged from the conflict battered but in a stronger strategic position, with its regime and its ability to threaten the region intact.\u201d The outcome, they said, \u201cis the greatest foreign policy failure of both of Trump\u2019s terms.<\/p>\n The Wall Street Journal editorial board criticized the deal<\/a> for requiring Iran to reopen the strait without tolls only for 60 days, noting \u201cthis means Iran may charge tolls after 60 days. Or at least President Trump couldn\u2019t get it to commit otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n Amrita Sen, founder of Energy Aspects market insight firm told CNBC<\/a>, \u201cI think it is fair to say, at least what has been given to us in terms of the 14-point plain, the language is quite favorable or heavily favorable towards Iran.\u201d<\/p>\n Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will \u201cshift pressure away from the United States and onto Iran\u2014putting Washington in a better position to demand the very concessions that critics suggest Mr. Trump should have obtained from this war in the first place,\u201d he wrote<\/a> in the New York Times.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s Defense<\/p>\n Trump fired back at his critics in a Truth Social post early Thursday, writing \u201cthese fools, who think I haven\u2019t been tough enough on Iran, when the Stock Market Just Hit A RECORD HIGH, and Oil prices are \u2018tumbling\u2019 down, are either jealous, bad people or stupid.\u201d Trump insisted Wednesday on the sidelines of the G7 conference in France the deal \u201cachieves everything we set out to accomplish and much more,\u201d including \u201cpreventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon\u2014that\u2019s what it was all about, that was about 99%,\u201d he said. Trump said part of the reason he agreed to the deal was because he \u201cdidn\u2019t want to see economic catastrophe.\u201d Trump defended allowing Iran to keep some of its ballistic missiles, despite Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming repeatedly those weapons had been destroyed. Trump said, \u201cI mean, they have to have some, because other people have some.\u201d Earlier Wednesday, Trump left open the possibility the agreement could fall apart amid the backlash, telling reporters on the sidelines of the G7 conference, \u201cyou never know with deals, but you\u2019re going to find out pretty soon . . . I think it\u2019ll be done, they want to sign.\u201d<\/p>\n Tangent<\/p>\n Pope Leo XIV praised the agreement<\/a> as \u201can encouraging result of patient work in dialogue and negotiation,\u201d but stopped short of saying it\u2019s a good deal for either side in a post on X Wednesday.<\/p>\n further reading<\/p>\n Trump Says He\u2019ll Go Back To \u2018Dropping Bombs\u2019 If He Doesn\u2019t Like Iran Deal\u2014After Saying Agreement Was \u2018Complete\u2019<\/a> (Forbes)<\/p>\n Iran Buys 20 Russian Helicopters After U.S. Peace Deal <\/a>(Forbes)<\/p>\n