By Elsie Kamsiyochi
The Trump administration’s effort to secure support for its controversial interim peace agreement with Iran faced fresh challenges on Thursday, as criticism from within the president’s own Republican Party threatened to overshadow a diplomatic campaign aimed at reassuring key Gulf allies.
A heated confrontation between President Donald Trump and Republican Senator Bill Cassidy has exposed growing divisions in Washington over the agreement signed with Tehran last week. The dispute comes at a critical moment as U.S. officials attempt to convince both domestic lawmakers and Middle Eastern partners that the accord can bring stability to a region shaken by months of war.
The disagreement reportedly erupted during a closed-door meeting between Trump and Senate Republicans on Wednesday. According to lawmakers familiar with the discussion, Cassidy pressed the administration for greater transparency regarding the terms of the Iran agreement, arguing that many of the deal’s details remain unclear and appear inconsistent with the objectives Trump outlined when the conflict began earlier this year.
The exchange reportedly escalated into a shouting match, highlighting the growing unease among some Republicans who fear the administration may have compromised too much in pursuit of a ceasefire. Cassidy later told reporters that lawmakers and the American public deserve a fuller explanation of the agreement and its long-term implications.
“The American people need more information than they have been given,” Cassidy said, suggesting that the current direction of negotiations may differ from the administration’s original promises.
The political tensions emerged as Secretary of State Marco Rubio completed a high-profile diplomatic tour of the Gulf region, where he sought to reassure American allies that the agreement would not strengthen Iran at their expense.
Speaking in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, Rubio acknowledged that Gulf states continue to harbor significant concerns about the accord. He said regional leaders want to be closely consulted throughout the negotiation process and expect Washington to keep them informed of any developments involving Iran and the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
The narrow waterway remains one of the world’s most important energy corridors, carrying a substantial share of global oil exports. During the recent conflict, Iran effectively exercised control over shipping movements through the strait, causing major disruptions to global energy markets and contributing to volatility in oil prices.
Despite signs of recovery in maritime traffic, tensions remain high. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said oil shipments moving through the Strait of Hormuz have nearly returned to pre-war levels, with approximately 20 million barrels passing through the route in the previous 24 hours. The improvement helped drive oil prices lower, easing concerns that a prolonged disruption could trigger another energy shock.
However, Iranian authorities signaled they have no intention of relinquishing influence over the waterway. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a warning to international vessels on Thursday, instructing them to follow shipping routes approved by Tehran and rejecting newly announced navigation corridors that were established without Iranian participation.
The warning followed an announcement by Oman and the United Nations’ maritime agencies regarding temporary shipping arrangements designed to improve safety and facilitate commercial traffic through the strait. More than 50 vessels have reportedly used the emergency routes since their introduction earlier this week.
Rubio responded firmly to suggestions that Iran could eventually impose fees on vessels using the waterway. He argued that international waterways must remain open and free from unilateral restrictions.
“No country on Earth has the right to charge for the use of international waterways,” Rubio told regional officials during his visit.
The controversy surrounding the Iran accord comes as Trump faces increasing political pressure at home. Public opinion surveys indicate that many Americans remain unconvinced that the costly conflict with Iran was justified. With congressional elections approaching in November, Republican strategists worry that voter dissatisfaction could threaten the party’s control of Congress.
Adding to the uncertainty are conflicting accounts from Washington and Tehran regarding several key provisions of the agreement. Iranian officials have disputed U.S. claims that unfrozen Iranian assets would be used to purchase American agricultural products. Other disagreements remain unresolved, including future nuclear inspections, sanctions relief, military reconstruction funding, and the status of Iran’s ballistic missile program.
One of the most controversial elements of the accord is a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund intended to support Iran’s economic recovery after the war. Gulf governments have expressed concern that portions of the funding could indirectly strengthen Iran’s military capabilities and regional influence.
The agreement also leaves unanswered questions about the future of the Strait of Hormuz. While Iran has committed to maintaining free passage through the waterway during a 60-day negotiating period, Iranian officials have hinted that tolls or other restrictions could be considered afterward. The prospect has alarmed both Washington and Gulf Arab states, which view unrestricted maritime access as essential to regional and global economic stability.
Meanwhile, another major obstacle to a broader peace settlement remains the ongoing conflict in Lebanon. Iranian leaders have repeatedly linked any permanent agreement with the United States to an end to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
Confusion emerged on Thursday after a U.S. official suggested that Israel had withdrawn some forces from occupied areas of southern Lebanon as a goodwill gesture. Both Israeli and Lebanese officials quickly denied the claim, underscoring the fragile and uncertain state of regional diplomacy.
As negotiations enter a critical phase, the Trump administration finds itself navigating opposition on multiple fronts. Skepticism from Republican lawmakers, doubts among Gulf allies, disagreements with Tehran, and unresolved conflicts across the Middle East are all complicating efforts to transform the temporary accord into a lasting peace agreement.
With only 60 days allotted for negotiations on the most contentious issues, the coming weeks could determine whether the Iran deal becomes a landmark diplomatic breakthrough or another flashpoint in an already turbulent region.
Source Reuters