US-Iran deal: Trump allies praise it, Democrats demand clarity

Washington, DC – A new agreement aimed at ending the US-Israel war with Iran is being hailed by President Donald Trump and his allies as a strategic victory, even as the specific terms remain undisclosed.

Praise from supporters poured in for the president on Sunday, despite questions about which commitments will be included in the memorandum scheduled for signing on Friday, and which issues—such as Iran's nuclear program—will only be opened for negotiation after the deal is signed.

US Vice President JD Vance pointed to the drop in oil prices immediately after the announcement as he heralded a so-called “new era” for the Middle East. “What the president has done is create real space to transform that region,” he told Fox News, adding, “I think we can safely say, with confidence, that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio linked the announcement to President Trump’s 80th birthday on Sunday, posting on X: “America is blessed to have a leader with incredible courage, extraordinary strength, unmatched humor, and an unparalleled love of country.”

Several Republican lawmakers took to social media to praise Trump as the “number one negotiator.” Congressman Robert Aderholt echoed Trump’s claim that the forthcoming deal with Iran would place more restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That agreement, from which Trump withdrew in 2018, was signed under the administration of President Barack Obama and saw Tehran scale back its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Tehran has long insisted it does not seek nuclear weapons.

“Unlike the deal reached under the Obama administration, this agreement will not allow Iran to continue enriching uranium and building the components needed to manufacture a nuclear weapon,” Aderholt said. But there is no indication the memorandum will include any immediate commitments on Tehran’s nuclear program. Both sides have said the initial deal will halt fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

US, Pakistani and Iranian officials also said the signing will reopen traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and lift the US naval blockade of Iranian ports. However, Iranian officials have said for days that the initial deal serves only as a starting point for 60 days of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, as well as other inherent issues, including the future management of the strait.

The two sides have also given differing accounts of when the US will begin unfreezing assets and lifting sanctions. US officials insist those actions will not happen immediately and will only occur if certain commitments are fulfilled after the deal is signed. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-time advocate for tough military action against Iran, was among those celebrating the breakthrough. However, he pointed to discrepancies in US and Iranian messaging. “I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of this agreement seems different from what the US negotiating team has stated,” he wrote on X.

Democrats demand clarity

Meanwhile, Democrats have questioned for months whether launching the war alongside Israel on February 28 actually advanced US interests. The Trump administration said its goals included degrading Iran’s military capabilities and dismantling its nuclear program. Trump and senior officials also said they hoped the war would spur regime change. That did not happen, with experts saying the hardline government only solidified during the war, despite the deaths of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and dozens of other officials. Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has assumed his father’s role.

Speaking to NS Now on Saturday, Congressman Seth Moulton criticized the memorandum’s terms as essentially “a surrender document from Donald Trump to the Supreme Leader of Iran.” “I mean, $100 billion of taxpayers’ money poured into this war, 14 Americans killed, and we have an agreement that just reopens a strait that was open before he started the war? How is that a victory?” he said.

Congressman Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Sunday that “the war of Trump’s choice was wrong and harmful to US interests.” However, he welcomed the renewed focus on diplomacy while calling for greater clarity on any deal. “The American people deserve more than vague announcements or political propaganda. They deserve security, clear answers, and the confidence that this administration will not repeat the failures that led us into this costly and unauthorized war,” he declared.

Prospects for more war

Robert Malley, the lead JCPOA negotiator under Obama, also described the Friday signing as “an important and welcome achievement” for its expected reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. “But the memorandum is also a stark and damning indictment of the preceding war, chiefly because its main achievement is to reopen a waterway that was only closed because of that war. As for the issues that will have to be resolved after the memorandum—the fate of Iran's nuclear program; the disposition of its enriched uranium; the scope of sanctions relief—they are almost certain to be left for later, and will almost certainly be harder to resolve than before the war,” he wrote.

Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, echoed that assessment. “Make no mistake: if you told the loudest cheerleaders of the war back in February that this would be the outcome, they would be horrified. No regime change. No Iranian surrender on maximum demands. This is their worst-case scenario,” he said.

And while falling oil prices offer a glimmer of hope for Trump, who has seen his approval ratings hit all-time lows due to the war’s economic fallout, whether negative views of the war will shift remains to be seen. The 60-day deadline for some key issues will expire in August, as the US enters the final stretch of campaigning before the November midterm elections. In an interview with the New York Times last Friday, Trump said he could resume strikes on Iran if a nuclear deal is not reached by then. In return, he said he could make the US the “guardian of the Middle East,” if the region pays Washington 20% of their revenues.