Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Become a member

Become a member

Senate Republicans Raise Alarm Over Trump Iran Deal

Senate Republicans are voicing growing concerns over President Trump’s agreement with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for sanctions relief, warning that the deal could strengthen Tehran while offering too little in return for the United States.

Get today's headlines by email image.png

The criticism comes after more than 100 days of conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran, a campaign that cost the lives of 13 American service members and required more than $100 billion in military spending, according to lawmakers.

Concerns Over Sanctions Relief

Several Republican senators argue that the agreement provides Iran with significant economic benefits while failing to secure major concessions on nuclear activity, missile development or regional influence.

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana sharply criticized the outcome, describing it as a major foreign policy mistake. He argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain intact and warned that Tehran had learned it could use threats to the Strait of Hormuz as leverage in future negotiations.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also questioned the wisdom of easing sanctions, saying that providing financial relief to Iran’s leadership could have serious consequences.

The memorandum of understanding would immediately ease restrictions on Iranian oil exports and could lead to the release of frozen Iranian assets held abroad, a prospect that has alarmed some lawmakers.

Questions Over Nuclear and Missile Programs

Critics say the agreement leaves major uncertainties surrounding Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

According to senators who reviewed the deal, it does not explicitly prohibit Iran from continuing uranium enrichment. It also leaves unresolved questions about Tehran’s future role in administering traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Lawmakers further pointed to intelligence assessments indicating that Iran retains much of its missile capability despite weeks of U.S. and Israeli strikes. A classified CIA assessment reportedly found that Iran still possesses roughly 70% of its pre-war missile stockpile and 75% of its mobile missile launchers.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas argued that the deal fails to address Iran’s support for regional proxy groups and could provide additional resources that might be used to fund them.

Under the agreement, Iran is prevented from imposing tolls on vessels using the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days. After that period, Oman and Iran are expected to negotiate arrangements governing the waterway’s future administration and maritime services.

Debate Over the Cost of the Conflict

Some Republicans have questioned whether the military campaign achieved enough to justify its cost.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said the agreement appeared weak and suggested that the benefits currently outlined do not match the financial and human toll of the conflict.

He noted that the United States initially sought to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities but has since shifted toward negotiations that leave many issues unresolved.

Cassidy compared the new agreement to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear accord negotiated under former President Barack Obama. Trump withdrew from that agreement in 2018, arguing at the time that it provided economic benefits to Iran without adequately restricting its activities.

The new memorandum also outlines plans for the United States and regional partners to develop a reconstruction and economic development programme for Iran valued at at least $300 billion.

Supporters See Opportunity for Diplomacy

Not all Republicans oppose the agreement.

Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio has defended the deal, arguing that reopening the Strait of Hormuz could lower global energy prices and reduce costs for American consumers.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Moreno said the agreement could create a path toward a lasting arrangement that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close Trump ally, acknowledged that reaching a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran may be difficult but argued that diplomacy remains worth pursuing.

He said the memorandum helps maintain the suspension of hostilities and provides an opportunity to seek a broader settlement on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Pressure Builds for Next Phase

Republican lawmakers say the administration now faces significant pressure to secure a stronger agreement within the next 60 days.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said lawmakers need a clearer understanding of the deal’s details and what benefits it delivers to the United States before making a final judgment.

Several Republican senators and senior aides also said they were unaware of any plans to provide a full Senate briefing on the agreement or on the negotiations expected to follow.

Join the discussion? Create account. orange.png

Already a member? haveyr-say.png


image.png
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 18 June 2026

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

BexMan Advanced Member

BexMan

Member

This MOU just puts Iran in the driving seat. The US confirmed to Iran by signing they are desperate for a way out and Itan will drag out negotiations. I cannot see them ever signing anything meaningful about giving up the Uranium they have processed.

They also now know how desperate the US is to keep the straight open and Iran can open and close it easily.

They will be super pleased to be charging $2 million for ships to transit, something Trump said he would not allow.

MikeandDow Ruby Member

MikeandDow

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, BexMan said:

This MOU just puts Iran in the driving seat. The US confirmed to Iran by signing they are desperate for a way out and Itan will drag out negotiations. I cannot see them ever signing anything meaningful about giving up the Uranium they have processed.

They also now know how desperate the US is to keep the straight open and Iran can open and close it easily.

They will be super pleased to be charging $2 million for ships to transit, something Trump said he would not allow.

And how would you know what they will be charging !!

Autocan Advanced Member

Autocan

Member
On 6/18/2026 at 3:52 PM, webfact said:

Senate Republicans are voicing growing concerns over President Trump’s agreement with Iran ...

I don't get it. The demand was for unconditional surrender and that's what they got. Can't ask more.

But seriously, apparently Sec. of Energy, Chris Wright, told Trump last week that it wasn't oil prices that he was worried but that there would be no more oil. At all. The strategic reserves would fall to a level in a few weeks where you can't draw on them because of the sludge. And the VLCCs stuck in the Gulf would take a few weeks to reach their destinations even if allowed to sail on the day.

Now, Trump may be dumb be he ain't stupid. The math wasn't hard. Neither were the Iranians showing any sign of caving to the blockade. So, as Churchill once said, You can trust the Americans to do the right thing after they have explored all the alternatives.

alanrchase Gold Member

alanrchase

Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

It was not controlling oil Iran student did so because Jimmy Cater allow the former Shad medical treatment into the U.S.

So the problem was to do with the Shah? Who put the Shah in power? Why did they put the Shah in power? Could those reasons be partly to do with what happened 47 years ago? Can you join the dots?

thailand49 Ruby Member

thailand49

Advanced Member
38 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

So the problem was to do with the Shah? Who put the Shah in power? Why did they put the Shah in power? Could those reasons be partly to do with what happened 47 years ago? Can you join the dots?

These are legit question but my response was it was for oil, on top I didn't know and I responded! yout question is for further discussion join the dots which I have no interest to do so it was the past right or wrong for whatever reasons.

Why discuss no one seems to respect anyone else opinion except theirs. But it seems those who 47 years ago who wanted the shad out now want the same government back. Funny how times might have changed is there a right government who really know it seems fighting is the only thing going in this region.

My feeling is U.S. needs to withdraw and worry about themselves and let them have it any way they desire defend your region yourself but we all know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

MikeandDow Ruby Member

MikeandDow

Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

These are legit question but my response was it was for oil, on top I didn't know and I responded! yout question is for further discussion join the dots which I have no interest to do so it was the past right or wrong for whatever reasons.

Why discuss no one seems to respect anyone else opinion except theirs. But it seems those who 47 years ago who wanted the shad out now want the same government back. Funny how times might have changed is there a right government who really know it seems fighting is the only thing going in this region.

My feeling is U.S. needs to withdraw and worry about themselves and let them have it any way they desire defend your region yourself but we all know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

My god !, this is hard to read ,!! so confusing !!

MikeandDow Ruby Member

MikeandDow

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, thailand49 said:

It was not controlling oil Iran student did so because Jimmy Cater allow the former Shad medical treatment into the U.S.

Utter rubbish !!

The United States (CIA) and the United Kingdom (MI6) put the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in power by orchestrating a coup d'état in August 1953.

Operation Ajax by the CIA—overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, after he nationalized the country's oil industry. The 1953 coup eliminated the Prime Minister's political power and reinstated the Shah as an absolute monarch, cementing Western influence in the region The US and the UK wanted Irans Oil.

The Shah's regime was overthrown because it was corrupt, repressive, and overly reliant on foreign powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, at the expense of Iran's sovereignty and cultural identity. he was forced to flee !

Decades of resentment boiled over in 1979 regarding the U.S.-backed 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's prime minister and installed the autocratic Shah.

1979, the Carter administration allowed the exiled Shah into the United States for cancer treatment, a move that enraged Iranian revolutionaries who suspected it was a prelude to a U.S.-backed restoration.

The US and UK wanted the oil originally, The raid on the embassy was nothing to do with oil !

metisdead Legendary Member

Grammar police posts and replies have been removed:

  • Proofread your post first as poor grammar and spelling can make a post difficult to understand.

  • Posts regarding spelling and grammar can derail a topic and can also appear intolerant and unhelpful.

unblocktheplanet Diamond Member

unblocktheplanet

Advanced Member

I blame this on that leftist democrat cult! It's all their fault! It always is. Damned commies...

Create an account or sign in to comment

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.