WASHINGTON, DC – A few months ago, it would have been unthinkable for mainstream American politicians, much less Republican senators, to recognize Iran’s right to self-defense.
But on Wednesday, that’s exactly what Sen. Roger Marshall did. “I think they have to protect themselves,” he told news channel CNN.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Analysts say the comments signal a change in U.S. attitude. Some Republicans appeared to be less hawkish this week after President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran.
Still, many pro-Israel groups and politicians have begun rallying against the deal, raising the possibility of a clash with the White House and forces calling for an early end to the U.S.-Israel war with Iran.
“Donald Trump can sell almost anything to his hardcore base,” said Matthew Das, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, a research and advocacy nonprofit.
“If he says one day that the Iran war is going well, and then completely reverses it and says the next day he’s going to sign a deal to end the war, most of his base will just go along with it, and they’ll get mad at anyone who publicly disagrees.”
Still, Das stressed that pro-Israel groups and politicians remain “very upset” about the memorandum.
unpopular war
The terms of the deal have been gradually revealed since last Thursday, when President Trump first teased that the “final point” of the ceasefire agreement had been “approved by all parties.”
The 14 points of the memorandum were only made public on Wednesday.
But the gradual rollout only partially protected the memo from hawkish criticism. Another factor is that Republicans are generally reluctant to confront Trump, who has a track record of confronting and defeating dissidents within his own party.
Even some of the most vocal pro-Israel hawks have refrained from confronting President Trump since the terms were announced.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, an avid supporter of the war, said the memorandum “will be beneficial” to the United States.
“Whether the United States will be able to reach an acceptable and verifiable agreement with Iran on its nuclear program and other issues remains to be determined, but I see little downside to trying,” Graham said in a social media post Wednesday.
Overall, Republicans were far more lenient with the original nuclear deal than with the one signed by Democratic President Barack Obama in 2015.
Unlike that agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the current Memorandum of Understanding is aimed at a wartime settlement. The United States and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28 without direct provocation.
The polls highlight widespread U.S. disapproval of the conflict, which is boosting the case for diplomacy in some conservative circles.
The fighting prompted Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, causing global oil prices to soar. In the United States, this is accelerating inflation and economic uncertainty, a factor that could weigh on the Republican Party’s prospects in the upcoming midterm elections.
“We’ve seen the cost of war. We’ve seen that war is not an easy solution. We’ve seen the huge economic impact of war on the American people and the opposition of the American people to war,” said Ryan Costello, director of policy at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a nonprofit lobbying group.
In the memorandum
The memorandum, signed on Wednesday, provides for a regional ceasefire to end the war and mandates a cessation of fighting not only in Iran but also in Lebanon.
The deal would see Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the US lift its siege on the country. The Iranian government also reiterated its longstanding position not to pursue nuclear weapons.
In exchange for that guarantee, Iran would receive some economic relief. The United States plans to lift sanctions on Iran’s energy exports, which will increase global supplies and lead to lower oil prices.
Iran would also be freed from billions of dollars in its own assets frozen under sanctions, although the memorandum does not provide a specific timeline or mechanism for releasing the funds.
But it has promised $300 billion in investments and a recovery fund for Iran.
The interim agreement does not resolve the difficult question of whether Iran will be allowed to continue its uranium enrichment program. This is planned for future consultations, which are expected to take place over the next 60 days.
Nor is there a single mention of Tehran’s missile program, one of the obvious reasons for the US and Israeli war against Iran.
Limiting Iran’s missile capabilities has long been a key goal for Israel, but Tehran has ruled out any concessions.
On Wednesday, President Trump said “missiles are not the problem,” suggesting he might address the issue as part of regional security talks.
“What are we going to do? We’re going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but we’re not going to let them (Iran) have missiles? It’s not going to work that way,” he told reporters.
However, President Trump has previously advocated limiting Iran’s weapons arsenal. Costello said President Trump’s sudden change in attitude was disorienting.
“President Trump resembled John Bolton last week,” he said, referring to the former U.S. official known for promoting military intervention.
“And this week, he looks more like John Mearsheimer,” Costello added, pointing to the realist political scientist.
Ted Cruz denies contract
Costello explained that while some Republicans are aligned with President Trump’s policies, others are testing whether to oppose the president’s diplomacy toward Iran.
“There is a crowd that is testing how openly they can oppose not just the memorandum, but everything that is envisioned from it. This is a fairly significant resolution of tensions with Iran,” he told Al Jazeera.
Sen. Ted Cruz, who called the deal “reckless,” also falls into that camp.
“History has taught us that it’s not a good idea to give billions of dollars to a theocratic lunatic who wants to kill us. I think the president is getting very poor advice on this deal,” Cruz told The Hill publication earlier this week.
Pro-Israel commentators like FOX News’ Mark Levin also described the memorandum as a “surrender to Iran and Hezbollah.”
Mr. Levin has praised Mr. Trump in recent months for starting the war, but implicitly criticized Mr. Trump over his comments about Iranian missiles.
In a post on social media
“And, no, if other countries have ballistic missiles, Iran shouldn’t have them. Iran is a terrorist regime that has killed its people. How many more times do we need to be reminded of this?”
He then harshly criticized U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, the central figure in U.S. negotiations with Iran.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a think tank that has been promoting military action against Iran, also rejected the agreement, arguing that the memorandum guarantees the survival of Iran’s system of governance and allows Iran to rebuild after the US and Israeli attacks.
“The memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran gives the terrorist regime the one victory it never achieved on the battlefield: economic respite,” two FDD representatives wrote in a New York Post column.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also issued a lengthy statement detailing what it sees as failures of the memorandum, including sanctions relief, lack of restrictions on Iranian missiles, and support for regional organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Statements from pro-Israel lobby groups continue to praise President Trump’s bombing of Iran.
“At President Trump’s strong direction, the United States worked with Israel to destroy Iran’s leadership, nuclear program, and military assets, creating an opportunity for a diplomatic agreement,” AIPAC said.
“The first memorandum of understanding agreed with Iran raises serious questions.”
A “terrifying” force
Das said some pro-Israel hardliners have been cautious in criticizing the deal, blaming Vance rather than Trump, but remain dissatisfied with the end of the war.
“They wanted the war to continue. They basically have a theory of military power that says if military force doesn’t work, use military force,” Das said. “It’s an outrageous worldview, but that’s their ideology.”
So can pro-Israel voices in Washington sever diplomacy with Iran?
Das said that while pro-war positions are not common, the influence of pro-Israel groups cannot be ignored.
“Pro-Israel hawks are clearly very entrenched in Washington,” he told Al Jazeera.
“They have vast amounts of money in think tanks and advocacy organizations. Despite the fact that their support among the broader public is very small and even declining, their ability to advance their ideas in the Washington policy dialogue remains formidable.”
Mr. Costello warned that even if it were not possible to reignite the war immediately, Israel’s supporters could try to sabotage diplomacy with Iran through a long-term strategy.
“There will be a lot of opposition to this deal, even if we fail to break it in the first place,” he told Al Jazeera.
Costello highlighted how pro-Israel groups attacked the JCPOA, saying the deal suffered “death by 1,000 cuts.” President Trump ultimately canceled the agreement in 2018.
“The FDD, neocons, and Republican foreign policy establishment made the Obama deal toxic,” he said. “And in the end, they were able to find a president who was willing to figure it out.”
