U.S. President Donald Trump faced sharp criticism on Wednesday (June 24) during a closed-door meeting with Republican colleagues regarding the war with Iran.

This heated dispute occurred shortly after the Senate passed a symbolic resolution calling for an end to the war, after which the Trump administration requested $70 billion in funding from Congress to cover the costs of the conflict, which had lasted for more than three months.

This internal party conflict, coupled with widespread skepticism from regional allies and the conflicting statements made by the US and Iran regarding the terms of the agreement, has placed multiple pressures on this initial peace agreement aimed at ending the Middle East war.

A heated argument erupted during a closed-door meeting: anger within the party became public.

According to several Republicans present at the meeting, Trump had a heated argument with Republican Senator Bill Cassidy. Cassidy pointed out that the administration needed to explain the framework agreement signed last week—an agreement that provided financial incentives to Iran but failed to achieve any of the goals set at the beginning of the war.

Cassidy told reporters after the meeting, "The American people need to know more than what has been disclosed so far. While I cannot be entirely certain, things do not seem to be developing as we have been told."

This heated argument is the latest manifestation of the political pressure the war is putting on Trump ahead of the November midterm elections. A recent Ipsos poll shows that only a quarter of Americans believe the war is worth the cost, and Trump's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point since returning to the White House last year.

Cassidy was one of four Republicans who previously supported the Senate's passage of a resolution to end the war—a resolution that, while largely symbolic, reflects significant divisions within the Republican Party on foreign policy. Trump did not mention his confrontation with Cassidy in his public remarks, but later criticized the Senate vote. He told reporters at the White House, "Iran will see this and will say, 'What's going on here?' Now you know, it makes no sense, right?"

Hours later, the U.S. government formally submitted a $70 billion war funding request to Congress, which would further increase the U.S. military budget of $867 billion.

The terms of the agreement remain controversial: contradictory statements from the US and Iran.

The conflicting wording surrounding the agreement's terms has continued to draw criticism of Trump both domestically in the United States and in the Middle East. Controversies surrounding issues such as financial incentives to Iran, inspections of nuclear facilities, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and Israel's war in Lebanon highlight the agreement's fragility.

The agreement sets a 60-day negotiation period to resolve thorny issues, including Iran's nuclear program. The agreement includes the establishment of a $300 billion reconstruction fund and waivers of some sanctions.

Regarding oil prices, supply concerns eased further as the Strait of Hormuz gradually reopened, causing oil prices to fall to their lowest level since pre-war times on Wednesday. The impact of the strait's reopening on the global energy market is becoming apparent, but whether the geopolitical risk premium can completely dissipate still depends on the prospects for the implementation of the agreement.

Regional allies' concerns are growing: Gulf states worry the agreement is too lenient.

The preliminary agreement also faces skepticism in the Middle East. Many regional countries, which have suffered Iranian attacks during wartime, believe the agreement is too lenient on Tehran.

U.S. allies in the Gulf region worry that the $300 billion reconstruction fund could help Iran restore its military power, and the agreement does not cover Iran's ballistic missile capabilities.

According to the agreement, Iran must ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz within 60 days, but Tehran has hinted that it may impose passage fees afterward.

A diplomat familiar with the negotiations revealed that Iran may propose a fee package for environmental protection, navigation, and security during upcoming talks with Gulf states, a proposal opposed by the United States and its Gulf allies.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in Kuwait, "We will not take any actions that would harm the security of our long-standing allies in the region." The U.S. embassy in Kuwait, which had been closed for several months due to the conflict, has resumed operations.

Israel-Lebanon negotiations are ongoing: Israel insists on not withdrawing its troops.

In Washington, Lebanon and Israel are discussing a U.S.-backed proposal that would require Israeli troops to withdraw from parts of their occupied territories and hand them over to Lebanese forces. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel will not withdraw its troops from the region.

Israel has been at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon since Hezbollah launched its attack on Israel on March 2 in support of Iran. Iran, on the other hand, has made a ceasefire in Lebanon a core demand in its peace negotiations with the United States, further elevating the Lebanese issue to a key position in the overall agreement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What were the main criticisms Trump faced at the closed-door party meeting?

A: Republican Senator Cassidy and others criticized the administration for insufficient explanation of the Iran peace agreement, its failure to achieve initial war objectives, and the lack of transparency regarding the substantial financial incentives provided to Iran. Cassidy emphasized that the American public needs more information, reflecting internal divisions within the Republican Party on foreign policy, particularly amplified by political pressure ahead of the midterm elections.

Q2: What is the amount and background of the war funding proposed by the US government?

A: The government has submitted a request for approximately $80 billion in additional funding to Congress to cover costs of the conflict with Iran. This follows previous notification from the Pentagon that around $80 billion was needed to replenish ammunition and operational expenses. This will further increase the U.S. defense budget, sparking congressional debate, with some members expressing skepticism about the cost of the war and the effectiveness of any potential agreement.

Q3: What are the core points of contention in the US-Iran peace agreement?

A: The main issues include the use of the $300 billion reconstruction fund, a nuclear facility inspection mechanism, freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and the Israeli military presence in Lebanon. The statements from the US and Iran are often contradictory, and the 60-day negotiation period needs to resolve thorny issues such as the nuclear program. Regional countries are concerned that the fund will bolster Iran's military power.

Q4: What are the potential risks of the $300 billion reconstruction fund in the agreement?

A: Regional allies are concerned that the fund could be used by Iran to restore its military capabilities rather than to rebuild civilian lives, and that the agreement does not adequately limit Iran's ballistic missile program. The fund's large size, without strict oversight, could exacerbate the regional arms race, undermine the agreement's credibility for peace, and provoke further opposition from within the US and Gulf states to its perceived "excessive leniency."

Q5: How will the concerns of Israeli troops and regional allies affect the prospects of the agreement?

A: Israel refuses to withdraw troops from southern Lebanon, viewing it as a security measure to protect residents in the north, which conflicts with the US-backed withdrawal proposal. Gulf states, having been attacked by Iran in the past, are hesitant to tolerate Iran in the agreement. Iran considers the Lebanese ceasefire central, adding multiple uncertainties to the overall peace process.