As President Trump aims to wrap up the ongoing conflict, he faces backlash from both neoconservatives and hardliners in Iran regarding the recently negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and Iran. Critics are demanding that the White House publicly disclose the full text, likening Trump’s actions to those of Barack Obama.
The White House asserts that the MOU has been electronically signed and is set for a formal signing ceremony in Geneva, Switzerland, this Friday. This agreement is said to represent a significant diplomatic achievement, potentially bringing an end to hostilities and initiating a 60-day negotiation period on contentious issues like Iran’s uranium enrichment, long-term deals concerning the Strait of Hormuz, and the easing of sanctions.
As the ceremony approaches, criticism from neoconservative factions has intensified. For instance, Eric Erickson remarked that President Trump seems to be attempting to end the war “on worse terms than the status quo he inherited.” He elaborated in a tweet, criticizing the war that he believes should never have started and expressing discontent over the current situation.
In a Substack piece, Erickson claimed, “What started as a powerful campaign to end the regime is ending in Americans’ subsidy and capitulation.” He added, “We are choosing to give up.”
Mark Thiessen, a contributor at FOX News, referenced a leaked proposal and said that, if accurate, the MOU would be disastrous. There are claims that even though Trump has signed the agreement, efforts are being made to rename it the “Vance Peace Agreement.”
Thiessen criticized the intention of including Lebanon in the agreement, asserting that this goal was driven by Iran, not the U.S., and that interpreting it as an American success would be misleading.
Fellow contributor Ben Domenech expressed his reservations, labeling the memorandum as reflecting “hillbilly Obama foreign policy” and asserting that it appears to be regressive, with no measures aligning with the president’s objectives for the conflict.
Hugh Hewitt pointed out a concerning aspect of the MOU: Israel’s absence from the discussions. He noted that a significant majority of Republicans support Trump’s actions regarding the war. Hewitt warned that if the deal undermines U.S. allies, it could erode foundational support for Trump among his base.
Commentary magazine editor John Podhoretz condemned the memorandum, lamenting that Trump had effectively “suffocated” the war effort. He expressed disappointment, wondering how the situation could have worsened further.
Ben Shapiro suggested that the MOU would likely result in a lackluster outcome, albeit not diving deeply into criticism of the optics of the signing. He mentioned the prospect of high-level Iranian officials joining the ceremony and feared it could misrepresent American leadership.
Fox News host Mark Levin also requested public access to the MOU, questioning why it is not available for scrutiny. He highlighted a sense of frustration that the details remain obscure.
Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina shared mixed feelings, expressing pleasure over the MOU while also voicing concerns about the differing perceptions of the agreement between the U.S. and Iran.
Mark Dubowitz, from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, even urged Trump to reconsider and reignite the conflict, arguing that the administration is recycling outdated talking points. He emphasized the need for a more assertive approach rather than the current negotiations.
Lastly, Andrew McCarthy criticized Trump for not releasing the MOU, equating him with Neville Chamberlain. He concluded that if the memorandum were beneficial, its details would likely be shared openly without hesitation.
