Not Even Lindsey Graham Can Defend Trump’s Iran Ceasefire Deal
The senator is stuck between his obsequiousness to Donald Trump and his hatred of Iran.

It doesn’t seem as though any American is satisfied with Donald Trump’s Iran peace plan—not even some of his staunchest congressional allies.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham implored the Trump administration Tuesday to test the merits of the proposal via a congressional review, akin to the handling of the Iranian nuclear deal struck under former President Barack Obama in 2015.
“At this early stage, I am extremely cautious regarding what is fact vs. fiction or misrepresentation,” Graham emphasized, hours after Trump announced he was capitulating to Iranian demands.
In the final hour of Trump’s total annihilation deadline, the U.S. leader posted on Truth Social that the two countries had agreed to a two-week ceasefire and that the White House was amenable to a 10-point peace plan that Iran had offered the day prior.
Those points include various demands for an immediate end to the regional violence, including proposals for a permanent end to the war, guarantees that Iran and its allies would not be attacked again, an end to Israeli strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and a halt to all regional attacks.
But the multipoint deal also seeks the lifting of all U.S. and international sanctions on Iran, and the imposition of a new $2 million toll per ship through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil tradeway situated between Iran and Oman.
Versions of the ceasefire plan distributed in Farsi—Iran’s native language—include an additional phrase not included in the English edition, specifying the “acceptance of enrichment” for Iran’s nuclear program.
It’s hard to see how the deal would offer any benefits to the U.S., though the final point undermines Trump’s rationale for the war entirely: The president’s primary interest in fighting Iran was to cripple the country’s nuclear program, stripping any potential for the country to create a nuclear weapon.
“Allowing this regime to enrich in the future would be an affront to all those murdered by the regime since this war started and would be inconsistent with denying Iran a pathway toward a bomb in the future,” Graham continued in a social media post Wednesday morning. “Many countries have peaceful nuclear power but do not enrich uranium. At a minimum, that should be the case for Iran.
“To those who say, Iran needs to save face by having a small enrichment program, I’m not remotely interested in providing face-saving cover to a regime that murders its own people, beats a 16-year-old girl to death for not wearing a headscarf appropriately, and is dripping in American blood,” Graham added.








