Nobody has seen the deal. It isn't even fully negotiated yet.
In the long arc of American foreign policy, the same tensions that have defined every attempt at Middle Eastern diplomacy are surfacing once more: the gap between the urgency of ending suffering and the political cost of compromise. Donald Trump, who once tore up Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, now finds himself defending a strikingly similar framework — offering sanctions relief and frozen assets in exchange for a reopened strait and renewed negotiations. The deal is not yet signed, its terms not yet fully public, and yet the debate over its meaning has already begun, revealing how deeply the memory of past agreements shapes the imagination of future ones.
- A war that has disrupted global shipping, driven up inflation, and cost an unknown number of lives is inching toward a potential ceasefire — but the agreement remains unsigned and its terms contested.
- Republican hawks, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Senator Ted Cruz, are attacking the deal before it is finalized, warning it mirrors the Obama-era accord Trump once called a catastrophe.
- Trump is pushing back on social media, insisting no one has seen the deal yet, while his Secretary of State Marco Rubio defends the diplomatic effort from abroad as a responsible path to ending the conflict.
- Iran's supreme leader and national security council have not yet approved the agreement, with officials citing one or two unresolved clauses — including whether the release of frozen Qatari assets is tied to Iran surrendering enriched uranium.
- Israel's Netanyahu is maneuvering for assurances that military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon can continue even after a ceasefire, while Iran insists any truce must apply across all fronts simultaneously.
- The deal's trajectory now depends on whether domestic political resistance in both Washington and Tehran can be overcome before the proposed June 5 negotiating window in Pakistan opens.
Donald Trump spent Sunday defending a peace agreement with Iran that had not yet been finalized, even as members of his own party condemned it as a surrender. The proposed terms, as reported, would grant Iran roughly $20 billion in frozen assets and sanctions relief in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and committing to 60 days of nuclear negotiations beginning June 5 in Pakistan. At least $6 billion of those frozen funds were held in Qatar, and whether their release would be tied to Iran handing over enriched uranium remained a central point of dispute.
Trump pushed back against his critics on social media, insisting the deal had not been seen by anyone and was not yet fully negotiated. He drew a sharp distinction between this agreement and the 2015 Obama accord he had once abandoned, and made clear that American economic pressure on Iran would continue until a final agreement was signed and certified.
In Tehran, officials confirmed that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and the national security council still needed to approve the deal, with one or two clauses requiring clarification before ratification could proceed. Iran's president spoke of national unity and resilience, framing the potential agreement as a historic victory against both the United States and Israel.
Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who had championed the war when it began in February, was seeking assurances that Israeli strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon could continue even after a ceasefire. Iran insisted any truce cover all fronts. Despite a supposed truce, Israeli strikes continued in southern and eastern Lebanon on Sunday. Netanyahu had little practical leverage — the war had grown deeply unpopular in the United States and was destabilizing the global economy through inflation and critical shortages.
The Republican opposition was loud and pointed. Mike Pompeo called the deal a gift to Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Ted Cruz warned of catastrophic consequences if Iran emerged with billions of dollars and a path to nuclear weapons. Even Lindsey Graham cautioned that accepting the deal under pressure from Iranian threats would confirm Iran as the region's dominant power. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking from India, defended the effort as serious diplomacy aimed at permanently opening the strait and addressing the roots of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Ben Rhodes, a chief architect of the 2015 agreement, offered a quieter endorsement: if this deal ended an unlawful war and stopped the loss of life and economic destruction, he would accept it over the alternative. Whether it would actually do so remained, as of Sunday, an open question.
Donald Trump spent Sunday defending a peace agreement with Iran that was still being negotiated, even as members of his own party attacked it as a capitulation. The proposed deal had not been finalized. Its exact terms remained unclear to the public. Yet hawks within the Republican Party were already calling it a disaster, questioning why the president had started the war in the first place and warning that it would leave Iran stronger than before.
Trump took to social media to push back against the criticism. He insisted the agreement would be fundamentally different from the 2015 nuclear accord that Barack Obama had negotiated and that Trump himself had withdrawn from eight years earlier. He said both sides needed time to get the details right, that there could be no mistakes. He also made clear that American economic pressure on Iran would continue until a final agreement was signed and certified. "Nobody has seen" the deal, he wrote. "It isn't even fully negotiated yet. So don't listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about."
According to reporting on the proposed terms, Iran would receive roughly $20 billion in frozen assets and relief from economic sanctions. In return, Tehran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping and commit to 60 days of negotiations over its nuclear program, beginning June 5 in Pakistan. At least $6 billion of the frozen money was held in Qatar. One of the central points of dispute involved whether the unfreezing of those Qatari assets would be tied to Iran's willingness to hand over enriched uranium. The agreement would also require all parties to stop fighting and would include a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israel had been conducting military operations.
In Tehran, Iranian officials said on Sunday that their supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, and the national security council still needed to approve the deal. They indicated that one or two clauses required clarification before the agreement could be sent for ratification. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, spoke of the country's unity and resilience, suggesting the government viewed the potential agreement as a significant victory. The Iranian government seemed to be preparing to claim a historic win against both the United States and Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who had been a key advocate for the war when it began in February, was trying to secure assurances that Israel could continue attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon even after a ceasefire took effect. Iran was insisting that any ceasefire apply across all fronts. On Sunday, Israel continued striking targets in southern and eastern Lebanon despite the supposed truce. Netanyahu posted on social media that Trump had reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself on every front, including Lebanon, and that any final agreement must eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran. In reality, Netanyahu had little choice but to accept Trump's decision. The war had become unpopular in the United States and was destabilizing the global economy, driving up inflation and creating critical shortages of essential goods.
The Republican opposition was fierce and vocal. Mike Pompeo, who had served as CIA director and secretary of state during Trump's first term, denounced the agreement as too similar to what Obama's negotiators had achieved and as a gift to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. Ted Cruz warned that if the deal resulted in an Iranian regime still run by Islamists, now flush with billions of dollars and able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, it would be a catastrophic mistake. Senator Roger Wicker called the rumored 60-day ceasefire a disaster that would erase everything accomplished by the military campaign. Even Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, cautioned that if the deal was struck because the strait could not be protected from Iranian threats, it would signal that Iran had become the dominant regional force.
Trump's secretary of state, Marco Rubio, defended the emerging agreement while speaking in India. He said the administration had made progress over the previous 48 hours and that the goal was to leave the strait completely open and to address the roots of Iran's nuclear ambitions. He pushed back against critics, saying it was absurd to think Trump would agree to anything that strengthened Iran's nuclear position. The preference, Rubio said, was to resolve the matter through diplomacy, which was what the administration was attempting to do.
Ben Rhodes, one of Obama's chief negotiators on the 2015 deal, responded to the criticism by saying that while this agreement might not follow the exact path he and his colleagues would have chosen, if it ended an unlawful and unjustifiable war and stopped the senseless loss of life and economic destruction, he would accept it over the alternative. The White House director of communications was less measured, telling Pompeo on social media to shut up and leave the work to professionals. The war had killed an unknown number of people, destroyed infrastructure across the region, and sent shockwaves through the global economy. Whether Trump's emerging agreement would actually bring that to an end remained uncertain.
Notable Quotes
The deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: pay the IRGC to build a WMD programme and terrorise the world.— Mike Pompeo, former CIA director and secretary of state
If this deal brings an end to an unlawful, unjustifiable war, to the senseless loss of life and destruction and to the cascading global economic fallout, I am quite sure we'd willingly accept it over the alternative.— Ben Rhodes, Obama administration negotiator
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why is Trump facing so much pushback from his own party if he's trying to end a war?
Because the hawks never wanted to negotiate with Iran in the first place. They wanted regime change through military force. To them, any deal that leaves the Iranian government standing is a loss.
But hasn't the war been unpopular?
Yes. It's destabilized the global economy, driven up inflation, created supply shortages. Most Americans want it over. But the ideological wing of the Republican Party sees Iran as an existential threat that can only be dealt with through overwhelming force.
What's actually in this deal?
Money and time, mostly. Iran gets about $20 billion in frozen assets unfrozen and sanctions lifted. The US gets Iran to reopen shipping lanes and sit down for 60 days of nuclear talks. But the details are still being worked out.
Is Netanyahu okay with it?
He's trying not to be. He wants to keep attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, but Iran is saying any ceasefire has to cover all fronts. Netanyahu doesn't really have a choice though. Trump is ending this war whether he likes it or not.
What do the critics say is wrong with it?
They say it's too much like Obama's 2015 deal—the one Trump withdrew from. They say it gives Iran billions of dollars and lets them keep developing nuclear weapons. They think it makes Iran the dominant power in the region.
Is that true?
It depends on what happens in those 60 days of negotiations. Right now, Iran has only committed to talking, not to any particular outcome. So in some ways, the US is back where it was before the war started.