A ceasefire agreement between the worlds greatest military power and its leading terrorist regime is a big blanking deal.
But ask yourself: If the “agreement,” which runs a page and a half, is so great, why hasnt it been released?
In a cascade of criticism, leading Republicans, joining the predictable Democrats, have expressed unhappiness with President Trumps secret deal. Their attitude ranges from deep skepticism to outright opposition.
And the media coverage, even accounting for the usual anti-Trump hostility, has been relentlessly negative.
“President Trump Lost This War,” the New York Times editorial page declared yesterday.
“Trump made a terrible mistake starting this war. He prosecuted it recklessly and in open defiance of the law. The United States is emerging weaker â militarily, diplomatically and economically â and will pay strategic costs for years to come.
The details of the deal are unclear, but the announced framework suggests that Mr. Trump has won few of the terms he insisted that he would. It is a humiliating comedown for him and the nation he leads.”
That theme emerges throughout the coverage. Washington Post foreign policy columnist David Ignatius says: “Lets be frank: In diplomatic terms, this agreement is an exit ramp from a costly and unpopular war, not a victory parade. The deal falls far short of President Donald Trumps early talk of regime change and unconditional surrender. Even one of Trumps close advisers concedes: Its inconclusive right now, in the sense that you cant say it was a huge success, and you cant say it was a failure.”
But whats most striking is the Republican pushback, with some demanding that Congress must approve any peace deal.Â
Sen. Thom Tillis says the agreement is “doomed to fail” because of the lack of congressional oversight. He also criticized some remarks by Pete Hegseth. “Now we are talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran? How does that make sense at all?”
“If you want a deal to last,” said Sen. James Lankford, “it cant be an executive agreement.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a presidential pal, said the memorandum being described by Iran “sounds awful.”
Speaking of uranium, the longtime hawk said: “If they can enrich it anywhere at all, then its the same as JCPOA,” the 2015 Obama agreement that Trump canceled. Graham told Politico he is “skeptical that Iran will ever go there.”
And conservative activist Erick Erickson, who has a popular radio show, says flatly: “Trump has surrendered to Iran.”
Colby Hall, a Mediaite founding editor who has started a Substack site that includes the “morning frame,” cited this example:Â
“Marc Thiessen is not a Democrat. He is not even a Never Trumper. He is a Fox News contributor, a Washington Post columnist, and a foreign-policy voice close enough to Trump that his calls reportedly helped shape the presidents position on Ukraine. He has had dinner at the White House.”Â
Thiessen compared the $300 billion that the White House concedes Iran would receive for a reconstruction fund to “offering the Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany while the Nazis were still in power.” The columnist “was applying the moral logic conservatives spent a decade constructing â that you dont rebuild a hostile regime, you constrain it â to a deal signed by the president he helped elect.”
He wasnt alone. Fox anchor Bill Hemmer called the situation “precarious. Its tough stuff because Irans history is to get to that table and just drag this thing out â month after month and eventually year after year.” Hemmer asked, “about us getting suckered back into a long, stalemated negotiati
