Larry C. Johnson
If you still harbored any doubts about the power of Zionist influence on Donald Trump, the events of the last 36 hours should dispel them.
On May 23, Trump posted on Truth Social: “An agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America…” He announced that the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened, while the other details of the deal—including what Iran would receive—remained vague. On Sunday, he followed up, posting: “I don’t make bad deals!” and telling critics: “Don’t listen to the losers who criticize something they don’t understand.”
The backlash on social media was fierce, swift and came from an unusually broad spectrum — from left, right and center — making Saturday’s reaction one of the most remarkable moments of criticism from within his own coalition.
The Republican and conservative headwind — the most damaging
The most significant opposition came from Trump’s own right wing, where critics argued that the war aims were being abandoned:
Senator Ted Cruz wrote on X:
If the outcome of all this is to be an Iranian regime — still led by Islamists shouting “Death to America” — that now receives billions of dollars, can enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and has effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a catastrophic mistake.
Mike Pompeo, Trump’s own former Secretary of State, was scathing:
Paying the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world is not even remotely “America First.” It’s simple: Open the damn strait. Cut off Iran’s access to money. Disable enough Iranian capabilities so they can never threaten us again.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a loyal Trump ally, posted:
Trump, the “peace president”, should never have started this war alongside Israel, which obviously does not want peace.
Senator Lindsey Graham deserves the Chutzpah Award. Graham posted on social media:
If a deal is reached to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy the most important oil infrastructure in the Gulf, then Iran will be perceived as a dominant force that requires a diplomatic solution.
He continued:
This combination — Iran is seen as permanently capable of terrorizing the strait and capable of inflicting massive damage on the oil infrastructure in the Gulf — represents a significant shift in the regional balance of power and will only intensify this over time.
He also posted:
I personally am skeptical of the view that Iran cannot be denied the ability to terrorize the strait and that the region cannot defend itself against Iranian military capability.
Graham was not alone. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that “the rumored 60-day ceasefire—in the belief that Iran would ever negotiate in good faith—would be a disaster,” adding that everything achieved through Operation Epic Fury would be “undone.” Wicker had accused Trump’s advisors on Friday of pushing him toward a deal “not worth the paper it’s written on” instead of allowing the president to “finish the work he started.”
The Times of Israel quoted senior Israeli officials and ran the headline: “’Nightmare for Israel’: Leading Republican senators criticize alleged terms of emerging Iran deal.” The official X account of the Republican senators retweeted Graham’s post, as did Senator Tom Cotton, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee — a signal that Graham’s skepticism represented a significant bloc of Republican Senate opinion and not just a single dissenting voice.
The deepest irony of Graham’s stance—widely commented on in social media—lies in the fact that he called for military action against Iran for years, celebrated the launch of Operation Epic Fury, and is now faced with the possibility that the war he championed has produced a strategic outcome that has strengthened rather than weakened Iran’s regional dominance.
The uprising in the Fox News comment section
In one of the more remarkable moments on social media, even Trump’s post met with resistance from Fox News’ own audience. When Fox News shared Trump’s “truth” social media post about the deal, its own followers reacted with deep skepticism. One commenter wrote: “‘Nobody has seen it, nobody knows what’s in it, it’s not fully negotiated yet’ — but trust him, it’s better than Obama’s deal. Incredible sales pitch!” Another wrote: “He needs to listen to the critics before he signs something stupid.” A third wrote: “Critics aren’t asking what the deal contains, they’re asking why there’s a deal at all.”
The reaction of the left
The Democrats largely amplified the contradictions — noting that Trump had publicly declared Iran’s military “decimated” and its nuclear program “wiped out”, while now apparently agreeing to freeze Iranian assets and allow further enrichment, and questioning what exactly this war was for.
As I indicated in the headline of this post, Miriam Adelson’s $250 million contribution to Trump’s campaign gives her direct access to Trump, which she readily uses. The devastating reaction from Miriam, lawmakers, and the public makes it highly unlikely that Trump will actually strike a deal with Iran. I expect the negotiating charade to continue until the oath ceremony, which is expected to begin on the evening of May 26, with the main day of the ceremony falling on May 27—three days from now. The festivities will last until Saturday, May 30. Although it is possible that Trump could reignite the war against Iran by Wednesday, I believe he will wait until next Saturday to order a new attack on Iran—to avoid antagonizing the Saudis, who are hosting an estimated three million Islamic pilgrims in Saudi Arabia for the Hajj.
