The best hope for ending a poorly planned war, which started with scant consultation with Congress or the American people, may be an unsatisfactory peace that leaves critical issues to be resolved later and deepens Washington strife.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said a deal to halt the conflict he chose against Iran is imminent and very close. Each time, his predictions turned out to be wishful thinking or a misreading of Iran’s true intentions.
So it’s no surprise his latest claims that a framework agreement with Tehran is near have been met with skepticism and confusion — nor that both conservative hawks and Democrats seem to believe he’s on the cusp of caving to a bad deal.
Still, diplomatic buzz suggests that an accommodation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to ease the US blockade on Iranian ships and ports could be close. Such a breakthrough could be a starting point for talks the administration will try to use to thwart any remaining Iranian nuclear ambitions.
A more concrete agreement beyond the current fragile ceasefire would be welcomed worldwide as it would come with the hope of eventually easing energy and economic crises triggered by the war and Iran’s closure of the strait.
The Iran war, like everything else in Washington, is hostage to bitter politics, entrenched ideologies and politicians seeking to boost their own profiles. The administration’s aggressive refusal to accept criticism over a conflict that seemed to vastly underestimate Iran’s capacity for resistance hasn’t helped.
It’s worth noting that Trump can’t win politically. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the war, so he’d face an equal or greater backlash if he ordered new strikes against Iran — a step that would threaten a violent escalation and worse economic pain. But presidents are often tempted to launch new military adventures to save face, or to search for an exit ramp that frequently turns into a quagmire. When they step back, lives can be saved.
Still, the emerging details of a potential agreement with Iran suggest the terms of a peace deal may be beyond even Trump’s capacity to spin into a triumph.
Indications, for instance, that Washington may unfreeze some Iranian assets and gradually dismantle its own blockade to persuade Iran to reopen the strait would effectively validate the leverage the Islamic Republic seized in the war and hand away key US bargaining chips.
Any undertaking from Iran in the memorandum that it will not chase nuclear weapons would be greeted with great reservations in Washington. A proposed period of at least 60 days for negotiations to resolve remaining sticking points on Iran’s nuclear enrichment, including its uranium stockpile, also seems rather compressed given the complexity of the issues. History shows Iran would love to drag the United States into a prolonged period of inconclusive diplomacy that lasts months or years.
Another reason for caution is that it’s not clear that Iran, with an even more opaque system of government after top leaders were killed in the war, will accept any peace deal that the US is apparently willing to offer. There were conflicting messages out of Tehran over the weekend. And Iran’s new leaders seem to believe they won this showdown with the America superpower — even if their economy is reeling and the citizens they repress are facing dire conditions.
Outlines of a proposed deal, meanwhile, fall far short of the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” that Trump demanded from Iran in March. But he’s under extreme pressure to find some resolution, with gas prices rising, his approval ratings tanking, and his support from congressional Republicans weakening on Iran and other issues.
Some Republicans fear Trump may be about to cave.
“Look, we were told about 11 weeks ago by (Secretary Pete) Hegseth and the Department of Defense that they had obliterated Iran’s defenses and it was just a matter of time before we had the nuclear material,” North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” on Sunday. “Now we’re talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran? How does that make sense at all?”
The US and Israel have made the removal of Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium a key war aim. But the casualties that could result from a bid to extract it by force have been prohibitive. And concessions that Iran would demand for handing the material over through diplomacy are likely to be very high.
Movement toward a deal has also drawn the skepticism of Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Mississippi senator wrote on X on Friday that Trump’s instincts to “finish the job” in Iran had been sound but seeking a deal now would risk “a perception of weakness.”
Trump ally Sen Lindsey Graham on Saturday warned that allowing Iran to press home its advantage by controlling the Strait of Hormuz would shift the regional balance of power.
These arguments have some merit. But it is also not clear how more fighting, on top of the weekslong US-Israeli onslaught on Iran, would have a greater chance of success in breaking Tehran’s resistance.
CNN reporting last week cited two sources familiar with US intelligence assessments as saying Tehran had restarted some drone production and was rebuilding certain military capabilities degraded by US-Israeli strikes. This means a resumption of war would risk even more intense and damaging Iranian retaliation against Gulf states, critical infrastructure and US forces than the first bout. An attempt to reopen the strait by force would be potentially dangerous and time-consuming.
Trump is also facing heat from Democrats who criticized him for starting the war, faulted his waging of it, and are now rebuking him over its possible endgame. Their attacks show their party senses that majority opposition to the war among voters might deliver them a midterm victory.
Sen. Cory Booker expressed concern over reports about the sequencing of a deal, starting with the opening of the strait and progressing to later nuclear talks.
“What I’m seeing that has me so outraged right now is the president said he went into this to deal with their nuclear program,” the New Jersey Democrat said on “State of the Union.” “This does not deal with that.”
Booker added: “Donald Trump is being played as a fool that he is for getting us into this in the first place.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen warned the proposed agreement would “take us back to the prewar status quo” or worse, but hinted that the US may have no choice.
“I think this was a blunder. When you’re digging a hole, you should stop digging, and that sounds like maybe what we’re doing, finally,” the Maryland Democrat said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio hit back at criticisms of the potential deal during a trip to India. “The idea that somehow this president, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd,” he said.
The president seems to have been listening to concerns he’s about to sign up for a dud. “I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side,” he wrote on social media Sunday.
With Memorial Day marking the start of a volatile summer of politics that may decide the midterms, top Republicans stressed that peace could bring a payoff for voters.
Kevin Hassett, the director of Trump’s National Economic Council, told Fox News that a deal would unleash a “gusher” of oil through the strait. “You could actually be looking at negative inflation because of the energy price going down,” he said. And Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, who is running for governor, told Fox that as soon as there was a deal, “those oil prices will be tumbling down and gas prices with it here in the United States.”
Many analysts, however, warn that the recovery from the closure of the strait, which left scores of tankers stuck in the Gulf for weeks, will not immediately improve global economic prospects or affordability in the US. JPMorgan analysts, for example, expect oil to average $97 a barrel throughout the rest of the year.
As more details become public about the proposed deal, Trump will face several critical questions. First, will his eventual agreement be more watertight than former President Barack Obama’s pact, which was negotiated with Iran and major world powers in 2015? That deal cut off Tehran’s multiple paths to nuclear weapons and included strict and constant verification.
Second, has Trump’s trashing of that deal — and a war that has taken 13 American lives in combat, closed down the Gulf region, cost billions of dollars, and likely killed hundreds of Iranians — put the United States in a better position with regard to Iran?
That this is even a question underscores Trump’s dilemma: Restarting the war could have grave political and economic consequences. Ending it on the best available terms may be almost as problematic and unpopular.