President Donald Trump’s emerging Iran deal is putting Republicans on Capitol Hill in an awkward position: Many want to speak out about the key provisions they dislike — from sanctions relief to billions of dollars in economic assistance — but few are willing to direct their criticism at the person leading the negotiations.

Instead, Republicans are focusing their concerns on four aspects of the Memorandum of Understanding: a proposed $300 billion reconstruction and economic development fund for Iran, the lifting of U.S. sanctions, the unfreezing of restricted Iranian assets, and the absence of explicit provisions requiring nuclear inspections.

While the more than a dozen Republicans who spoke to MS NOW refused to directly criticize Trump or his negotiating team, most were clear-eyed about what they viewed as the agreement’s shortfalls.

“In any circumstance, giving them a dollar, unfreezing assets — all of it is a concern,” said Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “There’s not a circumstance where it’s not a concern, because they’re the most untrustworthy entity that we could possibly be dealing with.”

“I don’t trust any of them, as far as I can throw them,” he added.

But Mast said the agreement should be evaluated in the broader context of the war. The U.S. attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, killed the Ayatollah and degraded the country’s military capabilities. He reasoned that the U.S. would be leaving Iran in a better position than before the war, even if Washington made economic concessions to Tehran.

Still, he stood by his reservations, telling MS NOW that even one dollar going to Iran concerns him. “I don’t want to see them have one dollar for nefarious activities,” he said.

The concerns are surfacing as members of Congress — and the broader public — wait to see whether the U.S. and Iran can strike a long-term agreement before the end of the 60-day negotiating period.

In the meantime, Republicans are voicing few reservations about the talks themselves, but plenty about the details.

When asked about the administration’s decision to lift the sanctions on Iranian oil, Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, took issue with the lack of conditions around the financial relief, arguing it weakens the U.S. negotiating position.

“I wouldn’t lift anything until they do what they’re supposed to do,” McCormick told MS NOW.

“The fact that we’re unfreezing formerly frozen funds once again doesn’t come from a position of strength,” he said. “I know that the administration must have seen that as a must by the Tehran regime in order to get it done, but at what cost? Once again, we are in the pole position.”

He noted that the economic support could come back to hurt the U.S. and its allies.

“Why would I trust this Tehran regime to be faithful to any agreement? And certainly, why would I give them anything to rebuild the military?” the Georgia Republican said.

McCormick, a Marine veteran, went a step further, saying the entire deal is “defunct” because on the day it was signed, Israel and Lebanon exchanged fire — a direct breach of the first point of the memorandum of understanding.

“This deal is not going to work anyways,” he said.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he was concerned with unfreezing Iranian funds, arguing that any money going to Tehran “goes back to terrorism.”

“Money is fungible,” he said. “And we know from experience that when you give — whether it’s sanctions relief, allowing to get back their assets — that money goes back to terrorism, and they kill Americans.”

“You can’t give them one dollar,” he said.

While Republicans showed willingness to criticize the deal, they were far more reluctant to place the blame on the agreement’s chief architect: Trump.

“Would I have written it differently?” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, rhetorically asked. “Absolutely.”

But he wouldn’t fault the president for the deal’s shortcomings.

“I’m not going to be critical to the people that did write it,” he said. “Look, this president is trying to reach an objective without getting us in a full-scale, troops-on-the-ground kind of war. I think most Americans appreciate that.”

While provisions in the agreement drew plenty of criticism, Republicans were also concerned by what wasn’t in the agreement — namely, a requirement that nuclear inspectors are granted access to Iranian facilities.

That issue has become a point of controversy. While the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that their inspectors would visit sites in Iran, an Iranian diplomat said such inspections would only take place after a final deal is reached

For Republicans, the inspections are essential. 

Asked about nuclear engineers not being allowed in, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., responded: “At some point, they’re gonna have to be.”

“I want American inspectors let in. Not just the IAEA — American inspectors,” he said.

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., echoed his concerns. “I think the inspectors must go in,” he said. “And I think they need to be accompanied by someone from the Trump administration or on our side.”

Alford went so far as to say “all bets are off” if Iran didn’t agree to inspections.

“Maximum pressure is going to have to be put upon the Iranians to live to that deal, or in my consideration, all bets are off,” Alford said.

Of course, there were Republicans willing to defend the deal and some of the least popular provisions.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., acknowledged that oil sits at the center of both the region’s economy and may of its geopolitical conflicts. He suggested that the memorandum could ultimately reduce energy costs.

“We’re exporting energy right now, yet we’re still beholden to this bunch. It doesn’t make a lot of sense,” he said.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Tex., a former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested that the administration deserved room to negotiate, but warned that any benefits from the deal should be earned, not handed over.

“All the conditions we are seeking should be met before we reward them,” McCaul said. “I mean, they have a history of not to be trusted, and I respect what the vice president’s trying to do to achieve peace in the region, but you can’t be naive about who they are in the process.”

McCaul warned the MOU wouldn’t be “a good negotiation” if the administration made concessions before securing commitments from Iran.

Even some Republicans who defended portions of the deal framed their support as conditional. Alford, for example, said temporary sanctions relief could benefit American consumers by increasing oil supply.

“I do think that the more oil that we can get out of there, the better it’s going to be for the American people,” he said.

Still, the dominant sentiment among Republicans was not confidence in the agreement but skepticism toward Iran itself.

Casting doubt on the prospects for a lasting agreement, McCormick predicted the administration would find out quickly whether Iran was negotiating in good faith.

“Long term? We’ll find out,” he said. “It won’t even be long term, I think.”

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., echoed the sentiment, saying he was “a little jaundiced” when it comes to the Iranian regime.

“I don’t really trust them too much at this point until proven otherwise,” Gimenez said.

The post Republicans see plenty to dislike in Trump’s Iran deal — just not Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.