Donald Trump defended himself against criticism from fellow Republicans on Sunday as he appeared on the verge of agreeing a deal with Iran to end the war.
As hawks in his party called the proposed agreement a disaster and questioned why the US president had launched the conflict in the first place, Trump claimed on social media that his deal would be “THE EXACT OPPOSITE” of the one agreed by Barack Obama, which Trump pulled out of in 2018.
He added that he was not rushing into a deal, saying “both sides must take their time to get it right … There can be no mistakes!”
Trump insisted “the US blockade of Iran’s ports will remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed”.
“Nobody has seen” the deal, “or knows what it is”, the US president later added. “It isn’t even fully negotiated yet. So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about.”
Facing mounting criticism from inside his own party, Trump insisted: “I don’t make bad deals!”
The proposed deal reportedly offers Iran sanctions relief and the unlocking of as much as $20bn of frozen assets in return for Iran reopening the strait of Hormuz and agreeing to negotiate on its nuclear programme over the next 60 days, starting on 5 June in Pakistan. Details of the final points of dispute were not released. At least $6bn of the assets are held by Qatar.
At the centre of the delay is a US demand that the unfreezing of those assets in Qatar be made conditional on progress on the handover of Iran’s enriched uranium.
The deal also reportedly requires Iran and the US, and their allies, to cease fighting, and for Israel to end its offensive in Lebanon.
As Trump moved to reassure those concerned about the deal’s contents, several US media outlets, citing unnamed White House officials, reported that it could take days for it to be finalised.
Iran’s supreme leader and national security council still need to approve the proposed peace deal between Tehran and Washington, Iranian officials said on Sunday.
One or two clauses in the proposed peace deal between the US and Iran must be clarified to Iran’s satisfaction before the memorandum of understanding can be sent to Iran’s supreme national security council and the supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, for ratification, the officials said, adding this had been conveyed to the Pakistani mediators.
The Iranian government seemed to be in jubilant mood, preparing to claim a massive and historic victory over its two great foes, the US and Israel. Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said: “What has guaranteed the preservation and stability of the country is the solidarity and empathy of the people.”
On Saturday, Trump spoke to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the key original advocate of the war when it began in February, to try to reassure him on the ceasefire’s terms.
Netanyahu is also trying to retain his freedom to continue to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, but Iran is insisting the ceasefire must apply on all fronts. On Sunday, Israel continued to strike south and east Lebanon, despite a supposed ceasefire there.
In a social media post on Sunday, the Israeli leader said: “President Trump and I agreed that any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger,” and that Trump had reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself “on every front, including Lebanon”.
In reality, Netanyahu has little option other than to accept Trump’s decision to end a war that is unpopular in the US and is crippling the world economy by increasing inflation and creating critical supply shortages.
Gulf states, as well as the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, had lobbied Trump on Saturday on the phone urging him to rule out returning to a bombing campaign inside Iran that they said would only bring Iranian reprisals and not topple an entrenched regime.
Trump – who said on Friday he would not attend his son’s wedding this weekend, citing Iran among the reasons for staying in Washington – wrote on his social media platform: “An agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalisation between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the various other Countries.”
The US and western countries have been insistent that Iran should not be allowed to impose tolls on shipping in the strait.
Iran’s Fars news agency, which is close to the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), stated that the strait would remain under Iranian control.
It reported on Telegram that “the management of the strait, determining the route, time, method of passage and issuing permits, will continue to be the monopoly, and at the discretion of, the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
But Iran has agreed that shipping through the strait should return to the prewar levels within 30 days.
On Saturday, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson said the future governance of the strait was a matter for negotiation between Iran on the north shore of the strait and Oman on the south, and not an issue in which the US could be involved.
Iran also said it had merely committed to negotiate all nuclear-related issues in talks lasting as long as 60 days, taking the timetable to late summer.
No commitments on the outcome of those talks has been made, only the topics, meaning the US has largely reverted to the prewar position that held in Geneva on 26 February, two days before the war started.
The deal will reportedly allow Iran to resume the sale of oil and petrochemicals during the negotiation period without the risk of sanctions. The US will also then lift its counter-blockade of Iranian ports.
The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, speaking in India, said: “We have made some progress over the last 48 hours working with our partners in the Gulf region on an outline that could ultimately – if it succeeds – leave us not just with a completely open strait … [but also address] some of the key things that underpin what have been Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions in the past.”
Challenging the mounting domestic criticism of a deal that in no way meets the US original objectives, Rubio said: “The idea that somehow this president, given everything he has already proven he is 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.
“That is just not going to happen. But our preference is to address this through a diplomatic means and that is what we are endeavouring to do here.”
News of the potential deal triggered dismay among Republican hawks, who had spent years calling for US military action against Iran, and deriding the 2015 deal to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment in return for sanctions relief negotiated during the Obama administration.
Trump withdrew from that international deal, known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), in 2018.
Mike Pompeo, who served as CIA director and secretary of state during Trump’s first term, denounced the current proposed agreement as too close to what Barack Obama’s negotiators had achieved and a boon to the IRGC.
“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,” Pompeo wrote on social media, referring to Obama’s chief negotiators.
The alternative, Pompeo added, is “straightforward: open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies in the region.”
Malley responded: “Not quite the path Wendy, Ben or I would have taken. But 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.”
The White House director of communications, Steven Cheung, was somewhat less diplomatic in his response to the former secretary of state.
“Mike Pompeo has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about,” Cheung wrote on X. “He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He’s not read into anything that’s happening, so how would he know.”
After the Republican senator Roger Wicker wrote the “rumoured 60-day ceasefire – with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith – would be a disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!”
Rhodes replied: “Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the IRGC in charge of Iran and the strait of Hormuz.”
Ted Cruz, the Republican senator for Texas, warned that if the war’s conclusion “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 and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake”.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, warned: “If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution.”
Additional reporting by Lucy Campbell and Robert Mackey