Why are Trump’s own party lawmakers split over possible peace deal with Iran; what’s really causing the divide?
Washington and Tehran continue to exchange positions, but no final peace agreement has been confirmed so far.
by Zee Media Bureau · Zee NewsNew Delhi: A possible US-Iran peace deal briefly looked within reach after a day of mixed signals from Washington, but by the end of the day there was still no agreement on the table. What started with hints of progress soon turned into confusion, as officials, lawmakers and political leaders offered very different versions of where the talks actually stand.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hinted on Sunday (May 24) that movement in negotiations could lead to updates soon. He said, “maybe later today there will be more news,” which fuelled expectations that an agreement could be close.
By Sunday night, however, it became clear that no deal had been reached between Washington and Tehran.
President Donald Trump later posted on Truth Social that negotiations with Iran were going on and that any agreement must be handled carefully and without haste. He also made it clear that Iran must understand it cannot develop or obtain nuclear weapons. Trump instructed US negotiators to avoid rushing into any settlement.
Iran’s response and position
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said there had been some narrowing of differences between the two sides over the past week. However, he also clarified that this does not mean agreement has been reached on important issues.
Iran’s state-run IRNA reported that the country’s president is willing to reassure the world that Tehran does not seek nuclear weapons.
At the same time, Tasnim News Agency reported that Iran has not agreed to hand over nuclear material under any draft proposal. According to the report, talks on such matters would only be possible after the end of hostilities, though no timeline or structure was clarified.
Israel sets its conditions
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also weighed in on the emerging negotiations, setting out his country’s position on any final agreement. He said that “removing the nuclear threat is essential” and reiterated Israel’s policy that “Iran will not have nuclear weapons”.
Quoting a senior Israeli official, BBC reported that Netanyahu also emphasised Israel must retain “freedom of action against threats in every arena”, including Lebanon.
Split views in Trump’s Republican Party
Indications of a possible agreement also exposed differences within President Trump’s Republican Party.
Senator Ted Cruz expressed serious concerns about what a potential deal might include. He posted on X that he was “deeply concerned” and argued that Trump’s earlier strikes on Iran were justified.
He warned that if a deal led to Iran receiving billions of dollars, continued uranium enrichment and nuclear capability, it would be a “catastrophic mistake”.
However, Representative Thomas Massie offered a different view in an interview with NBC, saying that if Senators Lindsey Graham and Cruz opposed it, it might actually be “a pretty good deal”.
He has previously introduced legislation requiring congressional approval before any US military action against Iran.
Senator Thom Tillis also questioned the direction of the talks, saying some of the suggestions being discussed “don’t make sense”. He asked why the United States would consider accepting any remaining nuclear material from Iran, while also pointing to past claims from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that Iran’s defenses had been dismantled.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso took a more supportive tone, saying Trump had brought Iran “to the negotiating table by projecting American strength”, although he admitted that details of any deal are unclear.
ALSO READ: US-Iran deal on the fence? Report says Washington refuses to accept certain clauses of peace MoU
On the Democratic side, Congressman Ro Khanna said during NBC’s “Meet the Press” that there were now enough votes in the Congress to push forward a War Powers resolution aimed at limiting presidential authority on military action.
He also pointed to economic pressures arising from tensions in the region, saying farmers were facing rising fertiliser costs and consumers were dealing with higher fuel prices because of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
What is known so far
According to available information, Trump has said that any agreement would require reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Reports suggest that Iranian state media has mentioned restoring traffic to pre-conflict levels within 30 days, though full normalisation still appears uncertain.
Iran’s Tasnim News Agency has said there is no commitment to hand over nuclear material in any draft proposal, while talks on such issues could come only after hostilities end.
Meanwhile, the US State Department has suggested that progress in talks could lead to the Strait potentially being reopened without fees, though no formal agreement has been announced.