Hawks within Trump’s own party fear his Iran deal could squander hard-fought battlefield gains and hand Tehran a strategic advantage

President Donald Trump’s emerging push for an agreement to end the Iran war is facing resistance from several fellow Republicans, who argue that the proposed framework risks squandering what they see as a rare opportunity to curb Tehran’s influence and nuclear ambitions.

The deal, which Trump said was “largely negotiated,” has prompted concern among lawmakers, former administration officials and conservative commentators, many of whom question whether the conflict’s costs would have been justified if Iran ultimately retains significant leverage.

Ted Cruz called Trump’s decision to strike Iran the most consequential move of his second term but warned against easing pressure too soon.

“If the result of all that is an Iranian regime — still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ — receiving billions of dollars, enriching uranium, developing nuclear weapons and maintaining influence over the Strait of Hormuz, then that would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz wrote on social media after Trump updated allies on discussions.

Lindsey Graham similarly criticized any arrangement that would leave Iran as a dominant regional force or preserve its ability to threaten Gulf oil infrastructure. Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned a proposed 60-day ceasefire, saying such a pause would make gains from “Operation Epic Fury” meaningless.

Trump brushed aside the criticism, noting that negotiations remain unfinished.

“So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about,” he wrote on social media.

The president insisted the proposed agreement differs fundamentally from the Iran nuclear deal negotiated during the Obama administration — an agreement he later withdrew the United States from.

“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes,” Trump said, adding that a U.S. military blockade of Iranian ports would remain in place until any deal is finalized and certified.

Not all Republicans have opposed the approach. Rand Paul defended the White House strategy, arguing that negotiations are a natural end point for conflicts.

“War virtually always ends with negotiations,” Paul wrote. “Critics of President Trump’s peace negotiations should give him space to find an America First solution.”

According to regional officials cited by the Associated Press, the proposal would end hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran would surrender its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Specific implementation details would be negotiated during a subsequent 60-day period.

As more details emerged, additional criticism followed. Mike Pompeo argued that the proposal appeared too similar to the Obama-era agreement Trump abandoned, describing it as “not remotely America First.”

John Bolton also warned that the reported framework could hand Tehran a strategic victory.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio defended Trump’s position during a visit to India, arguing that concerns over the president allowing Iran to strengthen its nuclear capabilities were misplaced.

“His commitment to ensuring Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon should not be questioned,” Rubio said.

Thomas Massie, one of Trump’s Republican critics, took a different view, suggesting that opposition from figures such as Graham and Cruz might indicate the deal is stronger than critics claim.