By Gloria Ogbonna
During Thursday’s broadcast of CNN’s “OutFront,” Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA) sharply criticized the proposed agreement with Iran, describing it as a “surrender document” and accusing President Donald Trump of mishandling both the military conflict and the subsequent negotiations.
Moulton argued that the administration entered the confrontation with Iran without a clear strategy for either victory or long-term stability. According to the Massachusetts congressman, Trump initially demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” but now appears to be backing away from that position and moving toward concessions that Moulton believes weaken America’s standing on the world stage.
“This is not a deal,” Moulton said during the interview. “It’s a surrender document.”
He continued by claiming that the negotiations now resemble “America’s unconditional surrender to Iran,” adding that the situation represents “a loss across the board” for the United States.
Moulton criticized the administration for, in his view, launching military action without a realistic plan for what would follow. He suggested that the White House underestimated both the complexity of the conflict and the political realities involved in forcing Iran to fully abandon its nuclear ambitions and regional influence.
CNN guest host Kate Bolduan challenged Moulton on whether a flawed agreement might still be preferable to having no diplomatic solution at all. The congressman acknowledged that while the current proposal may be deeply flawed, negotiations remain the only practical path forward short of a massive military occupation.
“Yes,” Moulton responded. “Great question. It is, because there’s literally no other option.”
He went on to explain that the only alternative capable of fully eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and achieving regime change would involve a full-scale takeover of the country — a scenario he described as unrealistic and extraordinarily costly.
“Unless he wants to take over the whole country,” Moulton said, “because that actually would achieve regime change, it would end their nuclear program, it would reopen the strait.”
However, the congressman emphasized that such an operation would require an enormous military commitment far beyond previous U.S. interventions in the Middle East.
“You’re talking about using 300,000 Americans for a country that’s twice the size and population of Iraq,” he explained.
Moulton added that he does not believe there is political or military support within the United States for such a large-scale invasion, even making a pointed remark about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
“I don’t think even Ranger Pete Hegseth wants that,” he said.
Because of those realities, Moulton argued that diplomacy is ultimately unavoidable, even if the current negotiations are producing what he considers a weak agreement.
“So the only other option is to sit down at the table and actually have a negotiation,” Moulton stated. “Let’s just be honest, though — he’s not only lost the war, he’s losing the negotiation as well.”
Later in the interview, the congressman suggested that the Trump administration may ultimately be trying to secure a version of the same nuclear agreement that former President Barack Obama negotiated years earlier — an agreement Trump strongly criticized and later withdrew from during his presidency.
According to Moulton, Trump now “has a hope and a prayer that he might get some semblance of the nuclear deal that Obama handed to him.”
The comments reflect the growing political debate in Washington over how the United States should approach Iran amid rising tensions, concerns over Tehran’s nuclear program, and questions about whether diplomacy or military pressure offers the best path forward.
Critics of the administration argue that the current strategy has lacked consistency, while supporters maintain that strong pressure is necessary to prevent Iran from expanding its nuclear capabilities and influence throughout the Middle East.
Source Breitbart
Original article
Comments