Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy
By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.
Li Ruikang
Copied
US President Donald Trump leaves the podium during a Rose Garden Club dinner at the White House on June 25, 2026 in Washington, DC, US. /VCG
A US-Iran preliminary deal that has helped halt months of fighting and eased immediate concerns over global oil supplies is rapidly becoming a political liability for US President Donald Trump, exposing deep divisions in Washington and leaving both lawmakers and voters questioning whether the diplomatic breakthrough came at too high a price.
The memorandum of understanding, signed last week, was presented as the first step toward a broader settlement rather than a final accord, with negotiations expected to continue during a 60-day implementation period.
Under the deal, Washington agreed to ease sanctions on oil exports, grant Iran access to some of its frozen assets and help develop a large international reconstruction plan for Iran. In return, Tehran agreed to temporary limits on parts of its nuclear program and pledged to keep the Strait of Hormuz fully open to shipping.
Trump has cast the agreement as proof of his ability to end a costly conflict while stabilizing energy markets, arguing that the ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz create conditions for lower fuel prices and renewed economic confidence. He has also defended the $300 billion reconstruction package, stressing that it involves no direct US taxpayer money and that any released Iranian assets or new economic activity would be channeled into purchases of US agricultural goods, offering a boost to American farmers.
That message, however, has struggled to contain criticism from within Trump’s own Republican Party, where some lawmakers who backed a tougher approach toward Iran argue that the administration conceded too much after months of military pressure.
Senator Bill Cassidy emerged as one of the most outspoken critics after the text of the MOU became public, saying sanctions relief, reconstruction funding and the absence of stricter limits on Iran’s nuclear activities amounted to “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.” Senator Ted Cruz, a Trump ally, also questioned provisions of the agreement, saying the idea of giving money to Iran will ultimately backfire.
The disagreement has spilled beyond public statements into Congress. This week, Trump reportedly clashed with Cassidy during a closed-door meeting with Republican senators as lawmakers debated both the peace agreement and broader war policy. Although Republican senators, including Cassidy, ultimately defeated a Senate war powers measure after intense lobbying by the White House, the episode highlighted unusual strains inside the party over Iran policy even as Trump sought to present a united front.
Recent polling suggested widespread disapproval for the deal even among Republican voters. A New York Post survey found that Republican support for the agreement fell sharply from 62% before respondents were informed of its provisions to 32% after they were presented with details of the concessions.
Democrats, meanwhile, have found their own line of attack, accusing Trump of abandoning the hardline rhetoric that defined his approach throughout the conflict.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called the agreement “the art of the surrender” and “payoffs through weakness,” while other senior Democrats argued that the memorandum is even more permissive than the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under former President Barack Obama. They contend that it offers Iran economic breathing room without delivering meaningful guarantees on its nuclear program. Trump withdrew from the 2015 deal during his first term.
The criticism allows Democrats to portray Trump as inconsistent while attempting to reclaim political ground on national security ahead of the midterm elections, where Republican candidates are already facing growing pressure after tensions around the Strait of Hormuz drove up gasoline prices and inflation.
Public opinion presents a more nuanced picture than the partisan debate unfolding in Washington. Recent polling indicates that most Americans support ending the conflict after months of rising military and economic costs. High energy prices remain a dominant concern, with many voters hoping the ceasefire will translate into lower gasoline prices. At the same time, confidence in the deal itself remains limited.
A CBS News/YouGov poll found only about three in 10 Americans believe the war advanced US strategic or economic interests, while nearly seven in 10 said Iran’s nuclear program remained intact even as 78% wanted the conflict to end.
That disconnect leaves Trump navigating competing political pressures. A prolonged war carried growing economic and electoral risks, but an agreement viewed as overly conciliatory risks alienating conservative hawks while offering Democrats fresh ammunition. As negotiators work toward a longer-term settlement over the coming weeks, the debate surrounding the deal is increasingly shifting from whether the fighting should end to whether the price paid for peace will become a defining issue in the US political campaign season.
Leave a Reply