President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
(@eire_globalsumud)
Extra context added because this headline is wildly misleading.