The early reviews from fellow Republicans of President Donald Trump’s leaked, 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran are very grim.
‘A disastrous mistake,’ says Senator Ted Cruz, from Texas.
‘This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,’ says Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. ‘Much bigger than a mistake … [it will] essentially be a lifeline to the Iranian regime,’ says former vice president Mike Pence.
The memorandum of understanding, signed on 17 June, appears to give Iran substantial financial benefits in exchange for vague promises about halting its nuclear weapons program and opening the Strait of Hormuz. A US$300 billion (A$429 billion) fund for Iran’s reconstruction is particularly notable, as that is twice that amount that Iran received after president Barack Obama’s 2015 Iran deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was widely panned by Republicans as far too generous to Iran.
That US$300 billion doesn’t count the release of frozen Iranian funds in foreign banks and the value of sanctions relief, also promised in the leaked MOU.
Democrats, of course, are also highly critical, asserting that Obama’s JCPOA produced a better outcome than Trump’s war of choice.
‘We are giving a lot more to get a lot less than we got in the JCPOA,’ said Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called Trump’s deal much worse than Obama’s. Mark Warner, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said ‘For all [Trump’s] critique of JCPOA, we had international observers, we actually had an alliance there that included the Europeans, and Russia and China were all signatories.’
Most Democrats believe the episode shows that diplomacy can more effectively address American national security interests than military action.
Conversely, Republicans (at least those of the national security hawk variety) are largely frustrated that the original attack on Iran, which achieved numerous operational goals – the decapitation of national leadership, sinking of Iran’s navy, crushing of its air defence, severe degradation of its missile inventory – was followed by an MOU that appears to give life back to the odious Iranian regime.
Much of the Republican reaction can be read as disappointment that a historical opportunity to change the Iranian regime has not only been missed but also only emboldened an abominable regime.
The Iranian regime has been capturing and killing Americans since 1979, when regime supporters stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage and kept them for 444 days. Iran was also responsible for 241 American deaths in Beirut in 1983 and 600 American deaths during the Iraq war from 2003 to 2011.
While Iran has bedeviled most American presidents since Jimmy Carter, many saw Trump’s Midnight Hammer attack on Iran’s nuclear program in 2025 and the larger Epic Fury attack in 2026 as the possible end of that cycle. Conservatives’ immediate reaction to the MOU is that that possibility is now past.
Conservatives are also frustrated that, like the JCPOA 11 years ago, the new MOU does not address Iran’s support for terrorist and proxy forces across the region – Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq. Could Iran use its new financial resources to revive these groups? Perhaps, but the difference now is that Israel has proven itself quite willing and capable – with some top cover from the United States – of addressing these challenges directly.
The MOU requires a 60-day period of negotiation on the many details of reining in Iran’s nuclear program. There is no guarantee this negotiation will succeed in finding common ground between the two antagonists and many Iran watchers believe it will ultimately fail. The result may be a muddled grey zone of Iranian belligerence and occasional American strikes on Iranian strategic positions, much like the pre-February 2026 period.
As today’s moment of anger and frustration passes, a more considered view will likely emerge on the right – that Trump’s willingness to use military force has restored deterrence to the American playbook, and the value of that will outweigh the concessions necessary to open the Strait of Hormuz. So long as Trump or his successor retain that military option and willingness, Iran will not be able to pursue a nuclear weapon. No deal – neither the JCPOA nor the Trump MOU – can provide that guarantee. This is the fundamental premise of conservative realism, and those who criticise Trump’s MOU today – for very good reason – will likely return to it in the weeks and months ahead.
This moment also provides what may be the beginning of the real contest between Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to be the next Republican nominee for the presidency. Vance is positioning himself as the champion of the new MOU. In the days since the deal was announced, many have noted that Rubio has been relatively silent.
Trump-sceptical conservatives in the Republican Party are desperately hoping that Marco Rubio will be their saviour and restore the party to global leadership in the style of Ronald Reagan. Indeed, he may have the talent and strategy to do that. He has demonstrated incredible effectiveness in the otherwise turbulent world of Trump’s second term.
In terms of winning a Republican presidential primary, however, the vice president may be in a better position. The Republican Party in the age of Trump is not Reagan’s party. It is more blue-collar, more ethnically diverse and vastly more sceptical of foreign entanglements. Vance’s support for Trump’s Iran deal, as flawed as it is, positions him as the anti-war candidate in a party that is increasingly anti-war. It may be enough to win the contest to be Trump’s successor.
