Wide political division in America over the “Iran Agreement”

It seems that the best possible scenario for ending the Iran war, which was decided without real consensus with Congress or American public opinion, is to reach a temporary and incomplete peace that postpones the fundamental issues to a later stage, and at the same time deepens the political divisions within the United States.

During the recent period, US President Donald Trump repeated more than once that an agreement to stop the conflict with Iran had become very imminent, stressing that the negotiations were nearing their end. However, these statements were not fulfilled on the ground, and it became clear each time that Trump’s assessments were closer to political wishes or to a misreading of Iran’s positions and true intentions.

Therefore, it was not surprising that his recent statements, in which he talked about the imminence of reaching a framework agreement with Tehran, faced a widespread state of skepticism within American political circles, whether from conservative Republicans known for their strictness towards Iran, or from Democrats who do not appear convinced of the possibility of reaching a real agreement at the present time.

Doubts

Despite these doubts, the ongoing diplomatic movements indicate the possibility of a limited breakthrough, represented by reaching an understanding that allows the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the easing of US restrictions imposed on Iranian ships and ports.

Observers believe that such a development may constitute an entry point to broader negotiations, through which the US administration will attempt to contain what remains of the Iranian nuclear program and prevent Tehran from developing its capabilities in the future.

Any agreement that goes beyond the limits of the temporary and fragile ceasefire will be widely welcomed internationally, especially since it may contribute to calming the global energy and economic crises that were exacerbated by the war and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most vital corridors for oil trade in the world.

But the Iran war, like most major issues in Washington, has become a prisoner of partisan conflict, ideological tensions, and political interests.

The US administration’s refusal to criticize its way of managing the conflict, along with its continued underestimation of Iran’s ability to withstand and respond, has contributed to complicating the scene instead of calming it.

Question marks

Republican Congressman Thom Tillis, from North Carolina, a Trump ally, expressed his surprise at the change in American positions.

He said during an interview with CNN that the US Department of War had informed Congress, weeks ago, that Iranian defenses had been destroyed, and that controlling Iranian nuclear materials had become a matter of time. He wondered why there was talk now about the possibility of accepting nuclear materials to remain inside Iran, considering that this raises major question marks about the goals of the war and its results.

Since the outbreak of the war, the United States and Israel have placed the goal of eliminating Iran’s stock of highly enriched uranium at the core of their military strategy. However, implementing this goal by military force carries enormous human risks, while achieving it through negotiation may require major political and economic concessions that Washington may reject or find difficult to pass internally.

Indications of rapprochement with Iran also raised concerns among a number of prominent Republicans, including the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Roger Wicker, who warned that Trump’s rush toward a quick agreement might make him appear weak after all the military escalation that preceded the negotiations.

As for Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s most prominent allies, he in turn expressed his concern that any agreement that allows Iran to strengthen its influence in the Strait of Hormuz would lead to changing regional balances in a way that threatens the interests of the United States and its allies.

Fears

Although these fears seem logical to a broad movement within Washington, the most important question remains: Will the continuation of the war actually lead to better results? After many weeks of continuous American and Israeli strikes, there are no clear indications of the collapse of Iranian will or that Tehran is close to surrendering.

Democratic Senator Cory Booker expressed his concern about the nature of the proposed agreement, especially with regard to the chronological order of its provisions, as there is talk first about opening the Strait and de-escalation, and then moving later to negotiating the nuclear file.

Booker said that what angers him is that the US President announced from the beginning that the goal of the war was to address the Iranian nuclear program, while the current agreement does not seem to deal with this issue directly or decisively.

In a development that increases American concerns, CNN reported from intelligence sources that Iran has returned to producing some drones, and has begun rebuilding parts of its military capabilities that were damaged by American and Israeli attacks. This means that any return to war may push Iran to implement more powerful and dangerous responses compared to the first round of confrontations.

Also, any military attempt to forcefully reopen the Strait of Hormuz could turn into a complex and expensive operation that takes a long time and leads to broader disruptions in global energy markets.

Midterm

Trump is also facing increasing pressure from the Democratic Party, which criticized the decision to start the war, then criticized the way it was conducted, and now attacks how it might end.

Democrats seem to realize that the rejection of war by a large segment of Americans may give them a strong opportunity to achieve political gains in the upcoming midterm elections.

For his part, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the possibility of reaching an agreement with Iran, stressing during a visit to India that it is illogical to believe that Trump, after everything he has expressed his willingness to do militarily, will accept an agreement that allows Iran to strengthen its nuclear program in the future.

In an indication of his awareness of the sensitivity of the issue, Trump wrote on social media that he asked his team not to rush into concluding the agreement, stressing that time is in the interest of the United States.

As the United States enters a sensitive political phase coinciding with the approaching midterm elections, some Republicans have begun to talk about the potential economic benefits of any agreement with Iran. Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, has indicated that reopening the Strait will lead to an increase in the flow of oil, which may contribute to lowering energy prices and reducing inflation rates within the United States.

Republican Representative Byron Donalds also confirmed that the decline in global oil prices will quickly affect gasoline prices in the United States, which may give the US administration an important political and economic boost.

Despite these optimistic expectations, many economic experts warn that recovery from the effects of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will not be quick or easy, especially after the movement of dozens of oil tankers was disrupted for weeks.

JP Morgan analysts expect the average price of oil to remain high during the remainder of the year, which means that economic pressures may continue despite any possible political agreement. About “CNN”

---

Two basic questions

As the features of the proposed agreement become clear, US President Donald Trump will find himself facing two basic questions: First, will the new agreement be more stringent and effective than the nuclear agreement that the administration of former President Barack Obama signed with Iran in 2015, which included strict restrictions and precise oversight mechanisms over the Iranian nuclear program?

As for the second question, did Trump’s withdrawal from that agreement, and then his entry into a war that cost billions of dollars, actually improve the United States’ position vis-à-vis Iran or not?

In the end, these questions reveal the extent of the dilemma facing Trump, as resuming the war may lead to dangerous political and economic repercussions, while ending it through an incomplete settlement may seem like a politically costly option, and unacceptable to many Americans and Washington’s allies alike.

• Democrats realize that the rejection of war by many Americans may give them a strong opportunity to achieve gains in the midterm elections.

• The Iran war has become a prisoner of partisan conflict in the United States, ideological tensions, and political interests.