Trump's agreement with Iran draws mixed reactions in the United States

(Patria) - Donald Trump can declare a diplomatic victory after reaching an agreement with Iran to end the war in the Middle East, but numerous pitfalls remain and the US president has lost political capital, AFP stated in its report on the agreement expected to be signed this week.

The cautious reception of Sunday's announcement of a memorandum of understanding with Iran, which is to be signed in Geneva on Friday, reflects prevailing skepticism at a time when the war is unpopular due to rising oil prices and the inflation it has caused.

The agreement ends nearly four months of conflict, paving the way for negotiations on Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions. It effectively extends the current ceasefire for sixty days and provides for the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic artery for oil and gas supplies, before the start of what promise to be extremely sensitive negotiations.

The war, launched on February 28 by the United States and Israel, set the Middle East ablaze, caused thousands of deaths, mainly in Iran and Lebanon, and destabilized global trade. Thirteen American soldiers were also killed during the conflict.

Trump, who initially said the war would last four to six weeks, faces increasing pressure at home to pull the United States out of the conflict ahead of the midterm elections in November.

While his close allies immediately hailed him as a "president of peace," reactions have been mixed, even within his Republican Party.

"I am somewhat concerned that Iran's stance on the agreement seems different from what the US negotiating team claims," said Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, a staunch opponent of Tehran, adding: "Any nuclear agreement with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote."

Republican Senator John Cornyn again posted a message on social media platform X from conservative commentator Pastor John Hagee stating: "No deal is better than a bad deal."

Senator Chris Murphy, an opposition Democrat, questioned the achievement of a final agreement.

"But if it is reached, two things will be true at the same time: a) It is essentially a surrender to Iran. b) We should be happy about it, because every day this crazy, illegal war continues, we become weaker," he said.

'Not the last word'

Senior Trump administration officials tried to defend the agreement, which Washington reportedly initiated with the aim of preventing Iran from eventually obtaining nuclear weapons.

US Vice President JD Vance said on Monday that when the text is published, "everyone will see... that Iran will not get a cent of money unless it fulfills its obligations."

Larry Sabato, a political scientist and professor at the University of Virginia, said that "this is not the last word, there are many details to be discussed, perhaps even for years." "This was a completely unnecessary war that achieved very little and cost a lot," Sabato told AFP.

He pointed out that Trump, whose approval rating is at an all-time low, has lost political capital, including within the Republican-controlled Congress and among supporters.

As for whether the new agreement would effectively mean a return to the original 2015 agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama and broken by Trump during his first term, that question remains unanswered.

Obama told ABC television that "it is doubtful that any agreement reached will be significantly different or a significant improvement over the agreement we had at the beginning."

The agreement "worked for a long time before" Trump withdrew, he said.

For Wendy Sherman, one of the lead negotiators of the 2015 agreement, "this will likely turn out to be somewhat similar."

"But we are in a completely different place, because we didn't have practically 1,000 pounds of sixty percent highly enriched uranium, which is quite concerning, nor all the other problems," she told ABC's Martha Raddatz.

"I can assure you that all of this will not be over in sixty days," Sherman added.