As President Donald Trump and Iran move forward with a memorandum of understanding to end the war, many congressional Republicans are expressing unease about what the emerging deal means for the United States.
But several Republicans have also expressed concern with what the agreement means for another country: Israel.
Several Republicans told MS NOW they are particularly distraught with a provision calling for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” — language they fear could constrain Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah.
In recent weeks, Israel has continued strikes on southern Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah there. Israel even struck Lebanon after the memorandum was announced.
When MS NOW asked Republicans on Thursday if the Iran deal was good for Israel, GOP lawmakers expressed a number of worries.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., took issue with the fact that Israel seemed to have been cut out of the negotiations, saying he’d like to find out what the Trump administration’s “thought process” was on that.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, similarly took issue with Israel getting cut out — going so far as to suggest that Israel should perhaps ignore the deal.
“They’ve got their own interests at stake, and you know, I would encourage them to continue to take the fight to Hezbollah,” he told MS NOW.
Like many other Republicans, Cornyn also took issue with the memorandum’s provision calling for up to $300 billion in reconstruction money for Iran.
“Unfortunately, now Iran is going to have hundreds of millions of dollars to support its terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah,” Cornyn said.
And Cornyn’s Texas colleague, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, was similarly concerned about forking money over to Iran.
“History demonstrates that sending billions of dollars to a theocratic lunatic who wants to murder us is a really bad idea,” he said.
Other Republicans were just as blunt with their criticism.
When MS NOW asked Rep. Don Bacon if the preliminary agreement was positive for Israel, the retiring Nebraska Republican was succinct: “No it is not.”
“Protecting … Hezbollah is not in Israel’s interests. The administration appeared desperate to get Iran to sign,” he said. “The MOU favors Iran significantly. They got their way with Trump.”
Bacon added that the U.S. had “significant military successes” against Iran.
“But Trump wanted an immediate deal too desperately and frittered away success,” he said.
Beyond the Lebanon provision, some of Israel’s top GOP allies are citing a tenet of the memorandum that says the U.S. “further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final Deal,” which experts say could allow Iran to say it drove the U.S. from the area.
Asked if he was concerned the deal may not be positive for Israel, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responded in a text message: “Super!”
He said the clause about the U.S. retreating from Iran was “the most astounding.”
“Wow,” he wrote. “I am sure that Iran interprets this clause as the removal of U.S. forces from bases and facilities in the [Gulf Cooperation Council] states. Has there been a greater strategic defeat? As they say ‘The Devil is in the details.’”
And while Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., expressed concerns about what the deal means for Israel, he also took issue with the potential political fallout for Republicans domestically.
“I want to protect Israel for its own sake,” Tillis said. “But there’s also a compelling political reason not to send t
