‘Worst foreign policy blunder in decades’: Key conservatives blast Trump & Vance’s Iran deal as ‘appeasement’ and a ‘disaster’

LONDON — I’m not going to lie to you – I’m horrified by the Iran deal that was unveiled this week.

During Operation Epic Fury, U.S. President Donald J. Trump promised to force Iran into an “unconditional surrender.”

But that’s not what he’s done.

Trump promised never to let Iran keep its enriched uranium – or to be able to enrich more uranium in the future.

But that’s not what this deal does.

During the war, Trump called Israel – and specifically Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu – his greatest and most faithful ally.

Recently, Trump dropped more F-bombs on Bibi than actual bombs on Iran, America’s most dangerous enemy in the Middle East.

This deal is a staggering act of appeasement.

It gives up enormous – previously unthinkable – concessions to the evil leadership in Iran that even former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden never contemplated.

WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE IRAN DEAL?

Tonight on THE ROSENBERG REPORT, I’ll discuss the potential political fallout when it comes to the Congressional midterms – and Israel’s national elections, as well – this Fall.

Polls in the U.S. already show the GOP in danger of losing control of the House.

Polls in Israel already show Netanyahu and his government in danger of being washed away in a tsunami.

I’m not predicting or supporting either.

But I’ll walk viewers through the political storms building in both countries and how this Iran deal could affect both.

Filmed on Capitol Hill before I flew to London, the show will air on TBN at 9 p.m. eastern tonight.

WHY DO TRUMP AND VANCE – THE DEAL’S CHIEF ARCHITECT – THINK THIS DEAL IS SO GREAT?

Why in the world does Trump believe this is a great deal?

Why in the world does Vice President JD Vance – the chief architect of the deal – think so?

Early indicators suggest that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were against the deal behind closed doors.

Time will tell.

But what were Trump and Vance thinking?

For the life of me, I cannot understand the logic of this deal.

None of this makes any sense.

The language of the Memorandum of Understanding gives enormous concessions to Tehran.

But makes very few specific demands of them.

I’m not happy – and I’m not alone.

KEY CONSERVATIVES BLAST TRUMP/VANCE DEAL

Even before the ink was dry, highly-influential conservative voices in the U.S. Senate and beyond have opened fire on the signature foreign policy decision of the Trump-Vance administration.

“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” wrote Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) on 𝕏.

“Reagan is rolling over in his grave. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.”

Cassidy added, “Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote on 𝕏, “History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea.”

“I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”

"Nearly one thousand Americans have been murdered by the Ayatollah and the mullahs,” Cruz noted. “It is not remotely in America’s interest for us to pay to rebuild that capacity that we just took out."

Former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence warned in multiple interviews and on social media, “there is no mention of dismantling the nuclear program or the ballistic missile program” and “no commitment to ending support for Hamas, Hezbollah, or other terrorist organizations.”

“But remarkably,” Pence notes, the MOU includes “immediate sanctions relief from the moment the MOU is signed. This means $3 billion a month into the coffers of Iran.

It also includes “a pledge of $100 billion in Iranian frozen assets being freed up based only on ‘progress’ in negotiations” and requires “the U.S. and others to arrange for a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.”

The deal with Iran “smacks of the kind of appeasement that we saw during the Obama years, the kind of appeasement that Joe Biden tried to accomplish and was ignored by the Iranians, and the kind of appeasement we categorically rejected during the first Trump administration,” Pence warned.

WHAT ARE BEN SHAPIRO AND MARK LEVIN SAYING?

American political commentator Ben Shapiro also scorched the deal.

"This MOU appears to be a disaster that does not achieve any of the signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning,” said Shapiro.

“In my opinion, the vice president, the chief negotiator, has not well served the president.”

Mark Levin, the talk radio and Fox News host, also was aghast at the language of the deal.

“Upon the signing of the MOU, there is an immediate and permanent end to the war, and that specifically includes Lebanon – this doesn't even make any sense,” wrote Levin.

“There are 60-days or more to negotiate a deal. Therefore, before a deal is finalized, we just declared a cessation of military action – permanently. And we committed to not even threaten force. Why would we agree to immediately drop the most important leverage we have over the regime in advance of it complying with MOU requirements and whatever else is decided in 60-days?”

“On top of this, we do the unthinkable,” Levin added. “We capitulate to Iran's demand to protect Hezbollah.”

“We lift the naval blockade 30-days after the MOU, rather than after final negotiations for a deal?” Levin asks. “That removes another major leverage we have over the regime. And we agree to remove our forces around that area within 30-days after the final agreement. We can always send our forces back, they say. But in all likelihood, we would not.”

But Levin went even further.

“Incredibly, we commit to helping create a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation and economic development of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. We are told it will not involve any of our tax money. That's a shiny object. Who would have dreamt that after we went to war with this regime because it was within days of having a nuclear weapon, that we would have any role in helping coordinate or raise one dime for this regime? The VP says they don't get a dime if they don't meet certain conditions. That's not what it says. Moreover, let's say they meet all conditions, receive the billions, and then tell us to go to hell. And who among us believe any of this money will go to assisting or improving the lives of the Iranian people, who have no rights and are slaughtered by the tens of thousands?”

WHAT ARE CONSERVATIVE EDITORIAL PAGES SAYING?

“Trump Is Losing the Hawks Who Once Defended the Iran War – Many of the conservatives who cheered on the president worry that the peace agreement doesn’t go far enough to deter Iran,” declared a Wall Street Journal editorial page headline.

“Trump’s Iran deal secrecy was atrocious – and Vance’s dodging made it worse,” declared a New York Post headline.

COULD TRUMP TURN THINGS AROUND?

Prediction: The more that conservatives and Evangelicals read the details of this deal, the more criticism is going to mount.

Could Trump turn things around?

Perhaps.

Over the next 60 days, Trump could insist on much tougher, much more specific language in the final deal that proves that Iran has lost – and actually surrendered – and the U.S. and Israel have won.

I will pray that happens.

You should, too.

But if Iran says no – and why should they say yes – is Trump really going to start bombing Iran again in mid-August?