GOP REVOLT against TRUMP after WAR SURRENDER!

[00:00:00]You signed the deal.

[00:00:02]>> You signed the sign.

[00:00:05]You signed it.

[00:00:08]>> A few moments later, >> this will go down as a tremendous foreign policy blunder.

[00:00:14]>> Donald Trump's Iran deal is causing a Republican revolt. Because after weeks of Trump projecting strength, after weeks of telling Americans that he had Iran cornered, Republicans are now looking at the actual deal and saying, "This doesn't look like victory. This looks more like surrender.

[00:00:32]>> They're better off than they were before the hostilities began."

[00:00:36]>> There's also a lot of talk about this $300 billion fund that they may soon have access to. Nobody is disputing that that is a thing. I hate to say this, in this deal the biggest loser is the United States and India.

[00:00:51]>> You negotiate from strength. You don't give people money.

[00:00:54]>> I will say that the early returns do not look wildly promising at this point.

[00:00:58]>> America has given up all of its leverage in this situation.

[00:01:01]>> Let's be very clear. This is the vice president's deal. It does not have support.

[00:01:05]>> The regime has not changed. They're just richer.

[00:01:08]>> I do have concerns about the memorandum of understanding.

[00:01:11]>> I didn't believe it. I thought somebody was spoofing me. Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, uh, no, no one's confident that Iran's going to do anything.

[00:01:23]>> How about the the the guys and gals that bled and died on our country's behalf?

[00:01:28]Where's their fun? I didn't see that inou.

[00:01:31]>> This doesn't feel like a victory.

[00:01:33]>> The New York Times reports that Republicans are criticizing Trump's Iran deal, and the criticism isn't mild either. Some are furious that the deal may give Iran too much economic relief.

[00:01:44]Some are concerned that major nuclear issues are unresolved and some are saying out loud what Trump fears most.

[00:01:51]This looks worse than the Obama Iran deal that Trump had spent years attacking. This will go down as a tremendous foreign policy blunder. Uh Iran ends up stronger. Our allies in the region are weaker and Iran has learned that if they're willing to grab that straight of our muzz and choke it off, they can get the Western world to dance to their tune. I think it's a deep mistake.

[00:02:14]>> One of the most damaging lines came from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy.

[00:02:17]According to the Guardian, Cassidy blasted the deal and said that Reagan is rolling over in his grave. That is as scathing an indictment as you will come by considering that Reagan is the party's foreign policy alter. And Cassid's not alone. Ted Cruz and other Iran hawks have raised alarms about the deal. Their concern continues to be around the fact that Iran seems to be keeping too much infrastructure. And if sanctions relief comes too early, if money flows before permanent concessions, then what exactly did America go to war for here? Why all the pain and suffering? They're making the claim that Trump's accepting promises where he once demanded surrender as a means to justify going to war. And according to Reuters, many Republicans were largely in the dark about the agreement itself, which makes sense, right? It follows suit with the criticism not just coming from CNN or other outlets that often oppose Trump, but Fox News of all places.

[00:03:15]>> All right. Uh Dana, they they they're trying to say this isn't a significant difference from this agreement. Well, there are some significant differences.

[00:03:23]Most of their leaders are dead. their military infrastructure has been demolished. They can't concentrate on exporting terror because they have to barely keep they're barely keeping themselves together. So, there is a difference here. The deal may sound similar, but you're dealing with an entirely different atmosphere.

[00:03:40]>> It's well, I could make their arguments better for them because there are things that you could say that that you would be able to think, okay, so you killed all of those 40 leaders, but now the IRGC is in charge. Okay. So, that's who we're dealing with and that's who we're supposed to stand next to on Friday and sign an agreement that nobody's seen already read except for this is the most transparent administration history, but we can't read it. Like like I could make all of those points.

[00:04:03]>> You have to stop doing that, Dana. I think she sounds they don't call me. But the the thing, like we said at the very beginning, the victories are usually visible, clear, understandable, and it's a it's just premature >> to say. We we haven't even read the information. I I would if I were the Democrats, I would be saying now you telegraph everything else. Why won't you just let us read the thing?

[00:04:26]>> And I think there's maybe two reasons for that. One, things are still being worked out behind the scenes, which would be, I guess, understandable. It's like they jump the gun perhaps and saying there's a deal. It's great.

[00:04:36]Everything's moving, but wait, and then an hour later, no, it's not, but maybe it is. And I try to keep up with it all day long. I think the best thing we could tell our viewers right now is to say, we got to wait and see. It looks like there could be progress here at least in getting this to end and the possibility of oil to start moving.

[00:04:52]Maybe that can then translate into some lower prices here at home. But in the meantime, you do have to look at the fact that there and going even back Solommani was killed. The um operation midnight hammer that put the uranium underground >> in the first place. the fact that they were able to blow up all of the leadership and including u I would go back even to what the Israelis did with the pagers um and having all of that intel in there like all all of that is different and better and puts us in a better position than we were 10 years ago, >> right?

[00:05:25]>> Or even or even more than that like when the JCPOA written by Obama was there.

[00:05:29]Her concerns were echoed at that point by retired General Jack Keane, who went on Fox, discussed the matter with Hannity and said that the memo should have been released because people were debating something that they couldn't see. And he also attacked the reported concessions, especially the possible reconstruction funding for Iran, saying that they shouldn't get any of it.

[00:05:50]>> Action will be taken, but I I can't square some of the things that are coming out of the ad administration from reliable sources. That's what I find so disturbing. When I heard it from the Iranians, Sean, I dismiss it. I said, "That's the same nonsense we were always hearing."

[00:06:06]>> But when I hear from administration sources some of the things that you have heard of what's in this deal, that makes no sense whatsoever. It's not defensible. I think what the president should do is just let's release it and let people see what's out there so we stop debating about something none of us has seen. Well, you got the assurances from the vice president tonight and the president is >> and this isn't coming from people on the left. This is coming from Trump's own media ecosystem. When you look at Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, their response has been brutal. Their editorial stated that Trump essentially surrendered and Iran got relief and the deal risks making tan stronger. The reported reconstruction fund has become one of the biggest flash points here.

[00:06:48]Conservative critics have focused on the possibility that Iran could eventually access a massive reconstruction fund with figures as high as $300 billion discussed in coverage of the deal. It's so ironic, right, when you think back to the fact that Trump sickants have went to bat for the president saying that he'd never give Iran money like Obama did when the reality is that Obama's agreement allowed Iran access to their funds that were frozen. I I just have to say for the record, my view is that President Obama didn't give money to Iran. He unfroze Iranian assets, but we can have that conversation at some other time. Let me say on Boeing, I'm glad that China is buying their Boeing plan.

[00:07:27]But but Congressman, wait, why unfreeze assets? Why give Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorists, $2 billion so that they could go give that money to the proxies that they that they support like Hezbollah and Hamas? Why unfreeze money? It it was Iranian money that was unfrozen for 97% of enriched uranium to get out of the country. President Trump tore that deal up. Now there's tons of enriched uranium.

[00:07:56]>> They never made a commitment to stop building a weapon. So why send them $1.7 billion when you didn't even have a commitment to stop uh building a a weapon? You yourself said you don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

[00:08:09]Well, just so we're factual, he didn't send them money. It was an their money that was unfrozen. I acknowledge it was unfrozen. What we got out of it is you say it was their money. Other people wasn't their money. It was stolen money.

[00:08:21]But that's fine. Let's say it is their money. Why unfreeze the money that you didn't you never got a commitment that they would stop building a nuclear weapon? Why are you sending them $1.7 billion so that they could go give it to Hamas?

[00:08:32]>> You got a commitment for 15 for 15 >> for 15 years. 97% of rich share any amount. Instead, what did we get? We had them having 60% enrich uranium when Trump tore up the deal.

[00:08:44]>> Trump said Obama gave them money. He said he empowered their regime that they didn't do enough on inspections. But Republicans are actually using that same template against Donald Trump.

[00:08:55]>> Talk about the enriched uranium Iran has already and how to dispose of it and what to do about Iran's nuclear program going forward. But it does not, as President Trump has been claiming day after day here in Europe, eliminate Iran's nuclear program entirely and prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon ever again. So in Evian today, I asked him why he's making that claim if we now know that it is simply not reflected in the document. And he said, "Well, you know, it's simple. If they try to build a nuclear weapon, I'll just bomb them again." And I followed up this way.

[00:09:38]>> There's nothing enforcable in the deal itself. Is that correct?

[00:09:41]>> Doesn't have to be. I let him know. I said, "Look, if you don't adhere to the agreement, I don't want to do that, but we're going to bomb the hell out of you.

[00:09:51]And I don't think that they're going to veer from the agreement. What else am I going to do?"

[00:09:55]>> Which exposes the real split inside the Republican party here. There are Republicans who want the war over because they are tired of Middle East escalation. There are Republicans who want maximum pressure on Iran and believe that Trump gave away too much.

[00:10:09]Then there are Republicans who are just too scaled to go against the president, so they defend him no matter what. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Phelpcowski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.