President Donald Trump is facing a rebellion from inside his own party as some of the GOP's most hawkish voices warn his emerging Iran deal could hand Tehran a massive geopolitical victory.

Senators including Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham are openly sounding the alarm over what they fear could become a repeat of the Obama-era nuclear agreement Trump once tore apart.

The proposed framework, which remains under negotiation, would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, establish a 60-day ceasefire and continue talks over Iran's nuclear program while broader details are worked out.

But Republicans are enraged over reports Iran may not immediately surrender all nuclear material already inside the country. These lawmakers argue the deal concedes defeat after months of military escalation in the Middle East.

Cruz delivered one of the sharpest attacks over the weekend, saying he was 'deeply concerned' by what he was hearing from inside the administration.

'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, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,' Cruz wrote on X.

'The details are still coming out - and I pray the early reports are wrong - but the fact that Biden's Rob Malley is praising the deal is not encouraging,' he added, referring to the former Biden Iran envoy who helped negotiate the 2015 Obama nuclear deal.

Cruz's warning triggered a flood of criticism from other Republican national security hawks.

Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, blasted the proposed 60-day ceasefire and warned 'everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught.'

Graham, one of Trump's closest allies in Washington, also publicly questioned the direction of the talks and warned that any agreement leaving Iran as a dominant regional power would be disastrous for Israel.

'It makes one wonder why the war started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate,' Graham wrote on X.

The South Carolina senator later softened his criticism somewhat, suggesting he could support the broader arrangement if it resulted in a major expansion of the Abraham Accords - the Trump-brokered agreements that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations during his first term.

Graham said adding countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan to the accords would be 'beyond transformative for the region and world' and called it a potentially 'brilliant move by President Trump.'

Still, skepticism inside Republican ranks continued to grow on Sunday when Thom Tillis questioned why the administration now appeared willing to tolerate Iran retaining nuclear material after months of insisting Tehran's capabilities had been devastated.

'We were told about 11 weeks ago by 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,' Tillis said on CNN.

'Now we're talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran. How does that make sense at all?'

Tillis also warned that any agreement not formally ratified by Congress would ultimately collapse just like the Obama-era accord Trump withdrew from in 2018.

'There are a lot of things that need to be explained,' Tillis said. 'Any agreement with Iran that isn't subject to ratification by Congress is going to be doomed to fail.'

The uproar intensified after fresh details emerged about the developing agreement.

According to reports, the United States and Iran have agreed 'in principle' to reopen the Strait of Hormuz - the critical shipping lane through which roughly 20 percent of the world's energy supplies transit - while Tehran would also agree in principle to dispose of its highly enriched uranium stockpile.

A senior Trump administration official told the New York Post that Iran would reopen the strait 'in exchange for us lifting the blockade,' while negotiations continue over how the uranium would ultimately be handled.

'We feel quite confident that the supreme leader has signed off on the broad template,' the official said.

Iran has not publicly confirmed the reported framework, and officials inside the country have reportedly issued conflicting messages about what any final agreement would contain.

The proposed deal has also reopened bitter divisions among Trump allies from his first administration.

Mike Pompeo accused the White House of drifting dangerously close to the Obama-era nuclear agreement.

'Not remotely America First,' Pompeo wrote on X.

The remark triggered a blistering response from White House communications director Steven Cheung, who fired back by telling Pompeo to 'shut his stupid mouth.'

Former national security adviser John Bolton also warned the emerging framework appeared to hand Tehran a major strategic victory.

'If news reports about the impending Iran deal are correct, the ayatollahs will have won a significant victory,' Bolton wrote Sunday on X.

Trump, however, has aggressively pushed back against the criticism and rejected comparisons to the Obama deal.

On Truth Social Sunday morning, the president insisted the agreement being negotiated was 'THE EXACT OPPOSITE' of the 2015 nuclear pact.

'Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!' Trump wrote.

He also said the US blockade around Iran would remain 'in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed.'

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also defended the administration's approach during a diplomatic trip to India.

'His commitment to that principle that they'll never have a nuclear weapon shouldn't be questioned by anybody,' Rubio said.

'And 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.'