Key Senate Republicans are raising concerns about a reported peace deal being negotiated with Iran, arguing it would undermine the joint military operation between the U.S. and Israel titled "Operation Epic Fury" launched nearly three months ago.
President Trump announced on Truth Social that an agreement with Iran has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and other countries involved. A regional official with direct knowledge of Pakistan-led mediation efforts told The Associated Press that a potential deal would officially declare an end to the war and establish a 60-day period of negotiations on Iran's nuclear program.
What the Left Is Saying
Senate Democrats have largely remained quiet on the reported deal framework, though some members of the party have quietly expressed support for diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Progressive lawmakers have long advocated for direct negotiations with Iran rather than military confrontation, arguing that economic pressure and diplomacy are more sustainable paths to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. The White House has not provided detailed comment on specific terms under discussion.
What the Right Is Saying
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the rumored 60-day ceasefire framework a potential disaster in posts on social platform X. "The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. He said the effects of Operation Epic Fury would "be for naught" if the deal as he understood it went forward, adding that further pursuit of an agreement with Iran's Islamist regime risks "a perception of weakness."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of President Trump who has pushed for military action against the Iranian regime, said a premature deal could fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East in Iran's favor. "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 dominant force requiring a diplomatic solution," Graham wrote Saturday on X.
The South Carolina Republican added that such a perception would become a "nightmare for Israel" over time. He also expressed skepticism that Iran could be denied the ability to threaten global oil supply by blocking the Strait of Hormuz again in the future. "I personally am a skeptic of the idea that Iran cannot be denied the ability to terrorize the Strait and the region cannot protect itself against Iranian military capability," he wrote, adding: "It is important we get this right."
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served in that role during Trump's first term, also harshly criticized what he understood as the deal. He wrote on X that it sounded as if it had been negotiated by officials working for the Obama administration, which both Trump and Pompeo have criticized for negotiating a nuclear deal they considered too weak. The proposed framework is "Not remotely America First," Pompeo wrote, arguing an effective deal would be straightforward: "Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies in the region."
What the Numbers Show
According to reporting by The New York Times, citing three Iranian sources, Tehran had agreed to stop the fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon where the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah has been fighting Israel. The deal would reportedly re-open the Strait of Hormuz without tolls and end the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports.
The prospect of a deal comes as Americans face record-high gas prices ahead of Memorial Day weekend. The national average hit nearly $4.53 per gallon, according to AAA data — levels not seen in four years. Republicans have faced political pressure over energy costs during an election year, with the House majority and potentially the Senate majority seen as within reach for Democrats based on current polling.
The Trump administration has long cited preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon as a primary justification for military action. The deal framework under discussion does not appear to include specific Iranian commitments regarding its nuclear program, according to available reporting.
The Bottom Line
Senate Republican critics like Wicker and Graham represent a significant bloc within the GOP that is wary of diplomatic engagement with Tehran after months of military operations. Their public criticism marks a notable departure from the generally supportive posture Senate Republicans have maintained toward Trump's policies.
Trump described his phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Iran's proposed framework as having "gone very well." The president faces competing pressures: diplomatic advocates and those concerned about gas prices favor an agreement, while war hawks argue it would validate Iranian aggression and abandon hard-won military gains. What specific terms the final deal includes — particularly regarding Iran's nuclear program — will likely determine whether Republican critics maintain their opposition or eventually offer conditional support.