The negotiations are a stark symbol of the president’s failure. But any deal is better than endless, foolish war.
President Donald Trump stands in the ring after Justin Gaethje defeated Ilia Topuria in a lightweight title bout during UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn of the White House, Monday, June 15, 2026.
(Mark Schiefelbein / AP)
When it comes to negotiating an end to war, Donald Trump suffers from a severe case of premature proclamation.
The attack on Iran that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched in February has disrupted the global economy, sending oil prices spiking, while utterly failing in its stated objective of regime change. Voters widely, and accurately, view the war as an unmitigated disaster.
Mindful of the political consequences of the war and eager to soothe both the electorate and jittery markets, Trump has since April repeatedly promised that a quick end to the fighting is just around the corner. According to CNN, Trump has announced an imminent ceasefire no less than 38 times in the last two months.
Given the president’s history of lying on this and countless other topics, it was natural to be suspicious on Sunday, when, in his typical hard-sell mode in a Truth Social post, he announced,
The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!
This post was not quite true—the Strait of Hormuz is not actually ready to open immediately—but it falls under the category of wild exaggeration rather than outright deception. There has been a diplomatic breakthrough, and we don’t have to rely on Trump’s florid and often false words to verify it, since the Iranian government itself has affirmed that it is ready to sign a “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) with the United States on Friday. The MOU will reportedly establish a ceasefire and set a framework for negotiations on thorny unresolved issues such as Iran’s nuclear program.
There’s another reason this imminent ceasefire seems more serious than Trump’s earlier fabulations: The strongest opponents of the deal, notably the Israeli government and its hawkish allies in the United States, are livid and already working to sabotage negotiations.
Current Issue
On Sunday morning, Israel launched an attack in Lebanon that was widely seen as an attempt to derail the signing of the MOU. Speaking to Axios, Trump fumed, “It shook it up. It delayed the signing by a few hours. It was supposed to be now.” The president added, “Why did Bibi have to do a fucking attack? I was so pissed off. I let him know. He has no fucking judgment. I let him know that.”
Prominent US hawks, notably Senator Lindsey Graham and radio host Mark Levin, are also expressing trepidation about the deal. More forthrightly, Mark Dubowitz, who runs the ultra-militarist think tank The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, laid out plans for hamstringing negotiations and preparing for a resumption of fighting:
Refuel energy markets. Rest and rearm the military. Develop a plan to support Iranians to cripple the regime. Enforce sanctions with relentless pressure. Don’t get played at the negotiating table. Test Tehran early. Give little. Demand results. Walk away fast. Hit harder.
While the full text of the MOU has yet to be released, the hawks are right to be concerned. Given Iran’s military resilience and the stranglehold it now has on the global economy through its control of the Strait of Hormuz, the final negotiated deal is likely to be filled with many concessions and far less threatening to Iran’s regional power than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by Barack Obama in 2015.
The New York Times reports that Israeli anger at the impending deal spans the political spectrum. The newspaper cites an “Israeli who had been briefed on the deal with Iran, and who requested anonymity to discuss diplomacy,” who claims that the agreement has the following problems:
There are no clear answers regarding the treatment of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and not enough curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, with the deal appearing to rely on Iranian good will.
Instead of creating the conditions for the collapse of the Iranian government, the deal would allow funds to start flowing back into its coffers.
The deal lays out no clear mechanism for forcing Iran to halt its support for its proxy forces. But it would mean the suspension of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, the militant group it is fighting in Lebanon.
If this Israeli account is accurate, then Trump’s Iran deal will be a major setback for US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. It will be tempting for some of Trump’s Democratic opponents to join with Republican hawks and taunt the president for making a bad deal. This sort of argument is already percolating in centrist circles, including from Michael McFaul, who served as US ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama. On X, McFaul professed shock that “Trump is giving the autocrats in Tehran $25 billion to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof made a similar complaint that Iran is getting “rewards for reopening the Strait.” Kristof went on to speculate that Iran could “take the North Korean path of acquiring not just threshold status but actual nuclear weapons.”
These sorts of critiques run the risk of feeding into the hawkish illusions that led to the disastrous war in the first place. The truth is, Trump launched a foolish and unnecessary war, which the United States has lost decisively. The war proves that the US and Israel have limited ability to restrain Iran. So the only alternative is negotiation.
Instead of attacking Trump for not being militaristic enough, Democrats should follow the lead of Representative Ro Khanna, who welcomed negotiations even as he rightly noted that the “terms seem no better than what Obama secured under the JCPOA nearly a decade ago. America lost 14 precious service members and wasted billions of dollars on this foolish endeavor.” In truth, the terms are likely to be worse. But even a bad deal is better than continuing a foolish war.
With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.
As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.
We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.
It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.
Onward,
Katrina vanden Huevel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
More from The Nation
This is an all-hands-on-deck moment to save cultural and press freedom.
In this week’s Elie v. US, our justice correspondent warns of a potential ICE invasion of New York. Plus: The administration escalates its assault on trans rights.
The anti-establishment Democrat in Maine won much bigger than the establishment Republican in South Carolina.
“The Nation” backs the NY-10 candidate who has the experience, financial expertise, and progressive vision to be an essential leader in the House.