Key Senate Republicans are raising sharp concerns about reports of a potential 60-day ceasefire deal with Iran, arguing that any such agreement would undermine the joint U.S.-Israel military operation launched nearly three months ago and leave the region more unstable.
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, posted on X that the rumored ceasefire would be a disaster. “The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster,” Wicker wrote, adding that the effects of the operation titled “Operation Epic Fury” would be for naught if the deal proceeds as described.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime advocate for stronger action against Iran, echoed those worries in his own post on the platform. He warned that a premature agreement could allow Iran to be seen as a dominant force, creating long-term problems for Israel and raising doubts about the original rationale for the conflict.
“If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution,” Graham stated. He added that such an outcome would become a “nightmare for Israel” over time.
The criticisms stand out because Senate Republicans have largely refrained from direct challenges to President Trump on foreign policy matters. Both senators posted their remarks before Trump announced on Truth Social that an agreement had been largely negotiated with Iran and other countries, with final details expected shortly.
According to a regional official with knowledge of Pakistan-led mediation efforts, the framework would declare an end to the fighting and open a 60-day period for talks on Iran’s nuclear program. The New York Times, citing three Iranian sources, reported that Tehran had agreed to halt combat on all fronts, including Lebanon where Hezbollah has been active, reopen the Strait of Hormuz without tolls, and lift the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports.
Trump noted in his post that he had discussed the proposed framework with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a call he described as going very well. The president also indicated he would remain in Washington rather than travel to Mar-a-Lago, citing ongoing duties related to Iran and skipping his son Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served in Trump’s first term, criticized the reported terms on X, saying the deal sounded as if it had been negotiated by officials from the Obama administration. “Not remotely America First,” Pompeo wrote, calling instead for straightforward steps to open the strait, restrict Iranian funds, and reduce threats to U.S. allies.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung responded directly to Pompeo’s comments, stating that the former secretary “has no idea what … he’s talking about” and is “not read into anything that’s happening.”
The push for a deal comes amid mounting pressure on the administration over energy costs. Americans are facing four-year record high gas prices, with the national average reaching nearly $4.53 ahead of Memorial Day. Republicans have expressed concern that continued high prices could affect their House majority in the fall elections, while Democrats see an opening in the Senate as well.
Wicker had already signaled caution on Friday, writing that further pursuit of an agreement with Iran’s regime risked projecting weakness. “We must finish what we started,” he posted. Graham expressed similar skepticism about Iran’s future ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz and global oil supplies.
The reported framework does not appear to include specific commitments from Iran on its nuclear program, a point that has drawn particular attention from the senators given longstanding U.S. statements that preventing a nuclear weapon remains a central goal of the conflict.
Trump’s announcement offered no additional details on enforcement mechanisms or verification steps. The New York Times noted that it remained unclear whether the deal described by its Iranian sources matched the one referenced by the president.
Officials have not confirmed a final agreement, and the White House has been contacted for further comment on the negotiations. Developments over the coming days are expected to clarify whether the reported 60-day period moves forward and how it addresses the concerns raised by Graham, Wicker, and other critics.