Far from “unconditional surrender” or the “total and complete victory” President Donald Trump claimed would result from his unilateral decision to launch a war against Iran, the protracted U.S. military action is reportedly winding down with a memorandum of understanding between U.S. and Iranian officials that includes lifting U.S. sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets, ending the U.S. blockade, reopening the Strait of Hormuz with Iran still in control, creating a $300 billion reconstruction fund, and the promise of further negotiations to end Iran’s nuclear program. 

In other words, the provisional agreement to end the war that has cost $30 billion and 13 U.S. lives appears to more or less restore the status quo before the war started. The biggest achievement of the outlined deal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which wasn’t closed until the U.S. started bombing. Details of a proposed effort to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon are still not figured out. Iran’s hardline regime is still in power.

None of this sounds like a win to Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who has repeatedly tried and failed to get her colleagues to pass a War Powers resolution to assert congressional warmaking authority, end the bombing and stop what she calls Trump’s illegitimate and “100% unnecessary” war.

“We have no assurances that war won’t continue, and no evidence that Americans are any better off today than they were before this all started,” Baldwin said in a press call Wednesday, calling the Iran war “a disaster for Wisconsinites.”

Baldwin is not alone. According to an April Marquette University Law School poll, 63% of Americans said there was not sufficient reason to start the war, and 68% said they disapproved of the way Trump has handled it.

Even Wisconsin’s Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, an ever-dependable Trump ally, told Bloomberg Television this week, “I don’t like the final outcome here. I’m sure President Trump doesn’t like the outcome. He would have liked unconditional surrender. It didn’t happen.” 

Johnson threw in a loopy tangent, blaming “gun control” for the inability of the Iranian people to overthrow their country’s brutal regime, calling it “a good lesson for the American people.” 

But Baldwin and Johnson appear to be mostly in agreement that, unproductive as it was, it’s better to wind down the war than to continue pushing forward with a costly and fruitless military adventure.  

“Look, peace is unequivocally a good thing, and something I have been fighting for since this president launched this unnecessary war,” Baldwin said Wednesday.

Speaking to Bloomberg on Tuesday, Johnson said: “If you’re going to recognize reality and realize that they still had a stranglehold over the straits and you want to open the straits up, there’s got to be some give and take.” 

So there it is: without knowing the details, Johnson supported Trump’s deal to end the war because it got Iran to reopen the strait it closed because Trump started the war in the first place. As for Iran’s nuclear program, “We can always go back in, the minute they make a move toward their nuclear sites, we can bomb them again,” Johnson asserted, echoing Trump.

“I don’t know what’s in the memorandum of understanding,” he added.

Being left in the dark about the details did not appear to trouble Johnson. Baldwin, in contrast, made it a point of her press conference, noting that Trump had repeatedly declared victory in Iran only to have the war continue.

“We need to make sure that whatever is in this agreement is real and also good for the American people,” she said, flagging the surge in gas prices that cost the average Wisconsin family $378 more since the war started as well as a huge hike in fertilizer prices that has taken a heavy toll on farmers.

The Iran nuclear deal Trump tore up, negotiated under the administration of President Barack Obama, included intrusive inspections that ensured Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity was not advancing, Baldwin noted. “I can’t see possibly how we could end up with a stronger deal curtailing Iran’s nuclear program 60 days from now than we did back in 2015 after months of multilateral negotiation,”  she said. “But again, Trump ripped up that deal, and we’re going to possibly, probably end up in a much worse place when we finally see this wind down and end.

Asked whether it still makes sense to push Congress to step up and pass a War Powers resolution, Baldwin answered, “absolutely.”

“When this president brought us into his war of choice, we weren’t under attack, we weren’t under any imminent threat of attack from Iran, he brought us into an illegal war.” Ever since then, Democrats have been introducing War Powers resolutions. 

“At first we had one Republican join us, then two, then three, then four. We are going to carry on until we are able to bring this to a close,” Baldwin said. 

Unlike Johnson, she was not reassured by Trump’s assertions that if the deal doesn’t work out, the U.S. can just start bombing again.

“I think it’s quite possible that some of my Republican colleagues who had previously joined us were taking the president’s word that a deal to end the war, an agreement to end the war, was upon us, and around the corner. I think they’ll soon find out that that’s not the case,” she said.

No matter how many conflicting assertions Trump makes about the war, it’s up to Congress to do its job. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators from both political parties said Tuesday they had yet to see the text of the deal Trump administration officials struck over the weekend to end the war in Iran, though several indicated any final agreement will require their approval. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said administration officials have signaled they expect to share the text of the memorandum of understanding with lawmakers, though he didn’t know when. 

“Hopefully that’ll happen sooner rather than later,” he said. “But, you know, obviously it sounds like they’re not going public with it until later in the week. So we’ll see.”

Thune said he’s heard the deal sets up a 60-day framework for negotiators to reach agreement on more specifics, including about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. 

“I think at the end of the day the goal here is to make sure that Iran ends its nuclear program and whatever financial incentives they have should be conditioned upon that,” he said. “But we’ll see when we know more.”

President Donald Trump, speaking from the G7 convention in Europe, said he may hold a press conference in “a couple days” to release the text of the memorandum of understanding and appeared ready for a vote in Congress.

“What I would like to do is send it to Congress, saying you shouldn’t approve it. And I will get it approved. Whatever I say, they want to do the opposite,” he said. “It is not working too well for them, by the way.”

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven said he believes the plan is to vote to approve the Iran agreement at some point. 

“I think anytime you have Congress ratify something, it gives it longevity,” Hoeven said. “You can’t have the next president come in and change it with an executive order. So I think that’s a benefit. I think it helps strengthen it.”

Hoeven said he hasn’t heard from administration officials why they haven’t shared the text of the memorandum of understanding with senators, even in a classified setting. But he said he’s more focused on U.S. enforcement of agreements on Iran’s nuclear program in the long term. 

“The real issue is that we have something that we can enforce and that’s hard with Iran because they don’t honor any agreement,” Hoeven said.  

Is the agreement a treaty?

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said he believes an agreement with Iran would represent a treaty and be subject to Senate approval. 

“It sounds like a treaty,” he said. “And if it’s a treaty, it certainly seems like it.”

That would require strong bipartisanship, since the Constitution sets a two-thirds threshold for the Senate to approve a treaty. 

Cassidy added it appears the administration will need the Israeli government — which initiated the attack on Iran with the United States — to stop its war in Lebanon in order to reach a final deal with Iran during the next two months.

“To make a deal, it takes two sides. In this case, maybe three, maybe four because you have Hezbollah and Israel,” Cassidy said, referring to a powerful Lebanese political party and militant group opposed to Israel. “Hezbollah can just stir it up with impunity if they want to under certain circumstances. So you tell me, I mean, it takes two to dance, and so now it takes four to dance. Can you pull it off in 60 days? I don’t know.” 

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said the administration needs to be as transparent as possible about what exactly is in the memorandum of understanding it’s reached with Iran. 

“Minimally, there has to be maximum transparency,” he said. 

Tillis said it “makes sense” for the Senate to approve any final deal, saying President Barack Obama made a mistake when he didn’t have lawmakers ratify the agreement his administration struck with Iran in 2015. That deal was named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. 

“I’ve said repeatedly Obama made a mistake when he didn’t do the work to have it rise to the level of a treaty, and I believe that we should here,” he said. “Otherwise, it’s only good for two and a half years.”

Tillis said he wasn’t concerned Congress hasn’t received the text of the memorandum of understanding yet, but that it’s imperative the administration share those documents.

“Trust but verify,” he said.  

‘Essentially a surrender’

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said he “doubts” the memorandum of understanding is actually real, but that if it is, lawmakers should expect there are “side deals” the administration may not share. 

“If what’s reported is real, it’s Iran’s terms. I mean, it’s essentially a surrender. But I think that’s the only play we can make at this point,” he said. “We have to end this war and stop wasting money and stop killing Americans and civilians and stop driving up prices. So it’s a bad deal but he’s not going to get a better deal. So we just have to accept the humiliation. But I don’t even know if it’s real.”

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said that lawmakers need to see the memorandum of understanding so she and others can “express our opinions.”

“But right now we can’t because it’s not fully out there,” she said. 

Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va., said he hadn’t seen the text of the memorandum of understanding or been briefed by administration officials. But he does believe the administration needs to submit it to lawmakers within five days, as outlined in a 2015 law. 

“My fear is that the details are not going to be as good as the president represents,” Warner said. 

Law requirements

Congress approved legislation in 2015 that requires any presidential administration to submit the text of a deal addressing Iran’s nuclear program within five days. Those documents don’t need to be sent to every lawmaker but are supposed to go to the congressional leaders as well as eight committees with jurisdiction. 

That transmission creates a 30-day review period for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to hold hearings and briefings. 

The law created a pathway for Congress to approve a joint resolution of disapproval for any Iran nuclear deal. The House and Senate would likely need the support of at least two-thirds of members in order to override a likely veto from Trump. 

Congress overriding a presidential veto of a disapproval resolution would block the Trump administration from lifting sanctions on Iran, though that seems an unlikely scenario given both chambers are controlled by Republicans. 

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says a joint resolution of disapproval taking effect “would not invalidate the agreement itself but would affect only the possibility of presidential sanctions relief to Iran; nevertheless, precluding the President from providing such relief would almost certainly result in a dissolution of the agreement by Iran.”

The law, officially titled the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, also clears the way for Congress to approve a joint resolution of approval. 

The CRS report says that “would, upon enactment, allow the President to waive sanctions, apparently even if the review period had not yet elapsed.”

Congress taking no action during the 30-day review period would allow the administration to begin sanctions relief as soon as that deadline passes. 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration still needs to determine how it will remove nuclear materials from Iran after officials from both countries sign documents to end the war, a senior official said Friday.

“This is very combustible stuff, very volatile stuff. We’re not just going to, like, go down there with a backhoe and a guy with a backpack and start taking it out,” the official, who did not want to be identified by name, said on a call with reporters organized by the White House. “The technical details need to be figured out, but I think there’s a commitment to do that.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote in a social media post a few hours before the call that a memorandum of understanding with the United States “has never been closer.”

“Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content,” he added. “In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course.”

The officials’ comments came one day after President Donald Trump said negotiators had “just made a great settlement of the war with Iran” that would be “subject to finalization of documents” over the next few days. 

Possible meeting in Europe

The U.S. official said the administration is 80% to 85% sure leaders from the two countries would gather sometime this month to sign a memorandum of understanding to end the war, possibly in Europe.  

Those documents will create a framework to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, destroy enriched nuclear materials and establish inspections to ensure Iran doesn’t possess a nuclear weapon, the official said.

The MOU will also start a 60-day technical negotiation where leaders from both countries work out more specifics of what the United States wants to see Iran accomplish in order to lift economic sanctions, the official said.

The step-by-step process with verification requirements is designed to build trust and “accomplish something meaningful for both Iran and the United States of America,” the official said.

“I don’t think the Iranians trust us and I don’t think the United States trusts the Iranians,” the official said.  

Whether or not Iran could have a civilian nuclear program for energy production will remain to be seen, though the official didn’t entirely rule it out. 

“We’re not bothered at all by the idea of civilian power plants in Iran,” the official said. “What we’re bothered by is the type of infrastructure that would allow them to jump from civilian power generation to nuclear weapons development and that’s what they’ve had for a very long time.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.