The Trump administration’s proposed extension of the ceasefire in the Iran conflict is facing criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for not fulfilling the original objectives set out when the war began three months ago.
PoliticusUSA is 100% independent news and opinion. Support us by becoming a subscriber.
During CNN’s State Of The Union, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) was questioned:
Let’s discuss Iran and this potential memorandum of understanding. Your colleague, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, stated — quote — “The rumored 60-day cease-fire with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith would be a disaster” — unquote.
Considering the limited details available, would you support this deal?
Tillis highlighted the flaws in the proposal:
It doesn’t make sense to me. I’m closely aligned with Pompeo’s views, and I agree with Chairman Wicker’s concerns.
We were informed 11 weeks ago by Hegseth and the Department of Defense that Iran’s defenses had been obliterated and that obtaining the nuclear material was imminent. Now, there’s talk of accepting the nuclear material remaining in Iran. How does that make any sense?
Furthermore, the expectation of a 60-day ceasefire and the clearing of the Strait of Hormuz before the deal’s terms are finalized seems dubious. Many aspects require clarification. As I’ve stated, any agreement with Iran that bypasses Congressional ratification is likely to fail, much like the deal we’re attempting to replace, which was the so-called failed agreement by Obama.
The Obama deal was not a failure. It was effective until Trump discarded it for a weaker alternative.
Video:
Tillis is not alone; both sides of the political spectrum are critical of this deal.
