US-Iran: Trump to 'Play Out' 60-Day Ceasefire, Israel Wants Lebanon to 'Burn'

The memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the United States and Iran is already off to a shaky start as one of the stipulations within the 14-point plan included Israel not striking Lebanon.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in addition to Pakistan's prime minister, signed the MOU on Wednesday as part of a broader framework aimed to mitigate Iran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for the U.S. unfreezing between $300 billion and $400 billion in Iranian assets. It would also reopen the Strait of Hormuz that was open prior to Feb. 28, the day that the U.S. and Israel jointly struck Iran with missiles to begin the war—though Iran could implement tolls to make shipping lanes costlier.

The agreement has caused a rift within the Republican Party due to some lawmakers and critics believing the U.S. capitulated and conceded too much at an unequal cost, considering that more than a dozen U.S. soldiers were killed during "Operation Epic Fury," hundreds of others were wounded, and the large sums of money will be utilized by Iran to rebuild damage to a nation attacked by the U.S. and Israel.

Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Friday morning, saying that Iran is "finished" and that they made the deal with the U.S. "out of desperation."

"We’ll play out the 60 days," Trump said. "They get no money, not ten cents!"

The president also defended the United States' apparent exit from the Middle East, saying that Iran's Air Force and Navy are "diminished" and criticized "Dumocrats" who have called Iran better off today than before the war.

It's unclear how long the agreement in place will even stay intact.

According to the first bullet point within the MOU, as reported by numerous outlets, it calls to "declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon."

One day after the Trump-Pezeshkian signing, both Israel and Hezbollah attacked one another. The BBC reported Friday that at least 18 people have been killed in southern Lebanon after overnight Israeli air strikes overnight that also left four Israeli soldiers dead. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it struck 80 targets linked to the Iran-backed armed group Hezbollah and killed "dozens" of its members.

Also on Friday, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir had a message for the United States: "For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn! With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit. Our supreme duty is to protect the citizens of Israel and the soldiers of the IDF, and this commitment takes precedence over every other consideration."

Ben-Gvir's message to "obliterate" and "crush" Lebanon is antithetical to what U.S. Vice President JD Vance said throughout the past 24 hours. He name-checked Ben-Gvir and other Israeli officials criticizing the MOU, telling The New York Times' Ross Douthat on a podcast:

"My response to them would be: What is your exact proposal? You’re a country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."

Vance was supposed to travel to Switzerland on Friday to negotiate with Iranian officials, as well as officials from Qatar and Pakistan, on its nuclear program. But the trip was canceled, as the White House cited logistics, while Swiss officials said it would be pushed to a later date.

Asked about Vance's Israel-based remarks from the White House, when the vice president said Israel should essentially be thankful for U.S. support, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) said Friday on Real America's Voice, "I thought JD's comments yesterday were absolutely inappropriate and frankly disgusting."

GOP Critics Sound off on Trump 'Blunder,' $300 Billion

The U.S.-Iran MOU has, to some surprise, galvanized a swath of Republicans in opposition to the Trump administration's foreign policy decision. Some have said it will be historically remembered as a major mistake.

"This will go down as a tremendous foreign policy blunder,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told Nexstar on Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, surprised some when he issued a statement Thursday chastizing the Trump administration—notably the reports that the U.S. will provide Iran with $300 billion or more to rebuild the country, which Trump and Vance have publicly denied.

"Specifically, the $300 billion fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran—though not funded by U.S. taxpayers—would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison," Wicker wrote. "I believe it would be an error to force Israel to stand down against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization that continues to attack Israel on its northern border.

"I also oppose the U.S. lifting any sanctions on Iran, or unfreezing Iranian funds, in exchange for Iran’s mere agreement to negotiate for another 60 days. The Iranian regime has not renounced its ultimate goal—“Death to America, Death to Israel.” The regime will invest every penny it receives to further that aim."

Sen. Ted Crux (R-Texas) echoed Wicker's concerns.

“History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think unfortunately the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal,” Cruz said. “If we give billions of dollars to Iran, that money will be used to murder Americans, and so I don’t believe we should do that.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) wondered whether lives were lost and money was spent in exchange for essentially nothing changing in Iran.

“It’s tough to say that the agreement is one that leaves Iran in a worse place and the United States in a better place,” Murkowski said, according to CNN.

A lot of money has been spent, some lives have been lost and yet you have Iran in a place where it almost looks like this is where they were before.

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon said Thursday on his War Room podcast: "Cut Israel loose and let Israel do what they want to do, what [Fox News host Mark] Levin and [Ben] Shapiro and the rest of them want to do, which is go crush the Persians. Get on with it. No more money or assistance from us. Just go do it. If you want to buy things at arm’s length, we’re open to everybody to sell that."

Middle East Analysts on MOU Framework

As some specifics of the MOU still remain unknown, Middle East analysts spoke Thursday about how the 100-plus days of war impacted people from the U.S. to the Middle East.

The war has, according to some estimates, cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $113 billion, while others suggest the price is much higher due to the impact on Americans who paid more for fuel and groceries that has been estimated to cost American families an extra $750.

It has also caused a cost-of-living and humanitarian crisis with human tolls that have resulted in more than 1,700 Iranians dead and 13 U.S. service members killed. In Lebanon, more than 3,700 people have reportedly died and countless others have been displaced.

"This is the first war in U.S. history that was net unpopular on day one," Harrison Mann, an ex-U.S. Army officer and associate director for campaigns and policy at Win Without War, said Thursday during a media roundtable. "Americans recognized that Trump's war on Iran was a crime and a mistake, even before it started making their lives more expensive and harder for them to provide for their families.

"And it didn't help, of course, that in the first days of the war, a U.S. missile strike killed over 100 schoolchildren in Iran and half a dozen U.S. soldiers were killed because this administration valued their lives so little, it could not be bothered to provide the most rudimentary protections, making them vulnerable to drones and airstrikes."

Mann said the war has been opposed by Americans on a 2-to-1 basis. A new AP-NORC poll released Friday found that roughly two-thirds (65%) of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump is handling issues with Iran.

Sina Toossi, senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy and an expert on US-Iran relations, said Thursday that "Trump launched this war with maximalist aims" involving regime change, nuclear capabilities, Iran's missile program, its ability to have influence in the region, and Iran's connections to its kind of regional allies.

"And none of those goals were met," Toossi said. "This war became a quagmire, he fell into an escalation trap, and he got into the point where after 40 days, he accepted the ceasefire based on an Iranian proposal. ... The US hit a wall. There was no military

solution, as many of us have argued for years...and you can't do regime change from the air."

The $300 Billion in Question

Asked by Military.com about the $300 billion number floated to reconstruct Iran, Toossi said it would not be U.S. taxpayer-driven funds and boils down to sanctions relief while the MOU remains vague.

Toossi said that one of the sanctions' relief benefits for Iran is just getting access to their frozen assets, and getting a waiver to more easily sell their oil as part of what was described as an upfront concession from the U.S. He referred to it as "a confidence-building measure" that was needed to reach a framework.

"The idea is that these neighboring countries of Iran, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, have had an invested interest in talks with Iran," he said. "A lot of them, they didn't really want this war: Qatar, the Saudis reportedly, certainly Oman and others, and maybe even now UAE may be on board."

"But basically, the idea is that there can at least be more mutual trade between these countries and this part of the world if it's envisioned as an investment farm spearheaded by these GCC countries—which are rich countries. This can kind of ultimately resolve a security dilemma between them if there is more interdependence, if they could even institutionalize something between all of them."