Key facts
- President Trump announced a potential peace deal with Iran could be signed as early as Sunday.
- Iran rejected the Sunday timeline but indicated a signing could occur in the 'coming days.'
- Democratic lawmakers criticized the deal, with some calling it a 'surrender document.'
- Ambiguity surrounds the deal's content, including terms for the Strait of Hormuz and frozen funds.
- Lebanon expressed anxiety over potential Israeli actions in response to the US-Iran agreement.
US President Donald Trump announced that a peace deal with Iran is nearing completion and could be signed as early as Sunday. However, Iran has rejected this specific timeline, suggesting the signing could occur in the 'coming days.' This development has been met with division among lawmakers.
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff expressed hope that the war is over but recalled past broken promises and new wars initiated under Trump. Congressman Seth Moulton described the potential deal as a 'surrender document' from Trump to Iran's supreme leader, questioning the value of reopening a previously open strait at the cost of taxpayer money and American lives. He called it a 'terrible deal.'
Conversely, some Republican lawmakers have reacted with cautious optimism or continued criticism of Iran. Senator Ron Johnson highlighted the 'existential threat' posed by a nuclear-armed Iran and expressed hope for Trump's success. Congressman John James credited Trump's 'strength' for bringing Tehran to the negotiating table. Representative Don Bacon, however, cautioned that 'hope is not a strategy' with the Iranian regime, emphasizing the need for power and resolve.
Significant ambiguity surrounds the details of the proposed agreement. While a document is reportedly ready for signing, both sides appear to have differing interpretations. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson indicated that Iran will charge for services in the Strait of Hormuz, a demand Iran has long made. However, the US side insists the Strait must be reopened immediately without such conditions. Iran also stated that the release of its frozen funds is an 'integral part of the agreement,' though it is unclear if this refers to the memorandum of understanding itself or a future, yet-to-be-negotiated agreement. Furthermore, Iran mentioned the end of foreign military bases in the region as part of the deal, but its inclusion in the current memorandum is uncertain.
Trump's own schedule for Sunday did not initially include a signing ceremony, though such events can be added. He has framed the potential deal as a major diplomatic breakthrough that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, suggesting Iran is no longer pursuing them. He also drew comparisons to the JCPOA negotiated under former President Barack Obama, which Trump later withdrew the US from, asserting his current deal would be superior.
Meanwhile, Lebanon has expressed anxiety regarding the prospect of a US-Iran deal, fearing potential Israeli actions. During a previous US-Iran ceasefire agreement, Israel conducted extensive strikes in Lebanon, asserting that Lebanon was not part of that agreement. Concerns are rising that Israel may again act independently of any US-Iran accord, with reports of advances and troop movements near Nabatieh.