Interesting 9 nations 1 condition recognized normal relations : all sign simultaneously or the deal dies

[putnam6]

Bold move there Cotton

No way they all sign, hell, might be difficult to get one to sign, certainly Iran's not going to.

But if they should and if they do, the Democrats' heads will explode

https://twitter.com/x/status/2058946826191929476

 

[Freija]

Doesn't really seem like Democrats heads are exploding? Article in HuffPost today just seems like an explanation:

Trump Says Iran Deal Should Include Additional Countries Joining Abraham Accords

In a social media post, Trump said negotiations are “proceeding nicely” but tied any eventual agreement to expanded participation in the agreements first signed in 2020.

www.huffpost.com

From CNN, everyone's favorite!

And it seems like conservative factions aren't real thrilled about a cut and run policy either:
Why Trump’s possible Iran deal may be almost as divisive as his decision to wage war

So it’s no surprise his latest claims that a framework agreement with Tehran is near have been met with skepticism and confusion — nor that both conservative hawks and Democrats seem to believe he’s on the cusp of caving to a bad deal.

What’s in the proposed deal that could end the US-Iran conflict?

Iran and the United States have signaled they are closing in on an agreement to turn the existing ceasefire that ended weeks of conflict into a more long-lasting settlement.

Both sides are talking of a “memorandum of understanding” that will set out a roadmap for resolving all outstanding issues, although a deal is still a “work in progress,” according to US Secretary of State Macro Rubio.

“We’re either going to have a good agreement or we’re going to have to deal with it another way,” Rubio said during a visit to India on Monday.

But what is in that memorandum remains unclear.

The central premise of this approach is that the memo, once signed, would stop the fighting, which would be welcome news to both sides, with US President Donald Trump facing midterm elections later this year amid sharply higher gasoline prices and Iran’s economy in crisis.

The agreement would then see the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and set off a 60-day process for tackling other issues, chief among them Iran’s nuclear program.

Rubio said there was “a pretty solid thing on the table” in terms of opening up the strait and in Iran entering into “a real significant time limited negotiation on nuclear matters.”

A senior administration official told CNN on Sunday that the framework agreement gives the parties “60 days to reach final deal points.”

According to the official, the potential deal would make sure Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon and would commit it to giving up highly enriched uranium, which the president often refers to as “nuclear dust.”

 

[putnam6]

Doesn't really seem like Democrats heads are exploding? Article in HuffPost today just seems like an explanation:

Trump Says Iran Deal Should Include Additional Countries Joining Abraham Accords

In a social media post, Trump said negotiations are “proceeding nicely” but tied any eventual agreement to expanded participation in the agreements first signed in 2020.

www.huffpost.com

From CNN, everyone's favorite!

And it seems like conservative factions aren't real thrilled about a cut and run policy either:
Why Trump’s possible Iran deal may be almost as divisive as his decision to wage war


What’s in the proposed deal that could end the US-Iran conflict?

Not the proposal itself

The Democrats would freak if a majority of those 9 nations signed Trump's proposal; it's not gonna happen, and that was the intent.

See who is really an ally and who isn't

https://x.com/i/grok/share/958e28bf636042a2b8039165470a9f98

Do the Democrats like Trump's new proposals for the middle east


No, Democrats generally do not like or support Trump's recent Middle East proposals. They have largely criticized or dismissed them along partisan lines, often calling them flawed, concessions to adversaries, or politically motivated without addressing core issues.


Context on "Trump's New Proposal"


Trump's most recent high-profile Middle East efforts (as of late May 2026) center on:

• Negotiations for a deal with Iran to end recent conflict/war, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz, potential sanctions relief, and linking it to broader regional normalization (e.g., expanding the Abraham Accords with more countries recognizing Israel). Trump has described talks as advancing but emphasized not rushing and needing a "great and meaningful" outcome.
• Earlier 2025 initiatives like a 20-point Gaza peace plan (ceasefire, hostage releases, reconstruction, demilitarization, gradual Israeli withdrawal, and Arab security involvement), following more controversial ideas like U.S. "takeover" and redevelopment of Gaza.

These build on Trump's first-term "Peace to Prosperity" plan and Abraham Accords approach.


Democratic Reactions

• On the Iran deal/proposal: Prominent Democrats (e.g., Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Cory Booker) have slammed it as a "blunder" that returns to a pre-war status quo or worse, failing to curb Iran's nuclear program, handing leverage to Tehran, and lacking a strong endgame. Some accused Trump of being "played" or weakening the U.S. position after military engagement.
• On Gaza/Middle East plans: Democrats have called earlier proposals (e.g., the Gaza "takeover" idea) "insane," "horrifying," or akin to ethnic cleansing. While some praised hostage releases or ceasefires in principle, they often avoided crediting Trump and criticized the broader approach as favoring Israel excessively or ignoring Palestinian statehood.
• Broader pattern: Criticism focuses on lack of congressional approval for actions, risks of prolonged conflict, humanitarian concerns, and skepticism that deals deliver lasting peace or address root issues like Iran's influence.

Republicans have been more supportive (or cautiously optimistic) of Trump's transactional style, seeing potential for normalization, security gains, and economic deals. Reactions split sharply along party lines, as is common in polarized U.S. foreign policy debates.


In short, partisan opposition is strong—Democrats view these proposals through a critical lens and show little enthusiasm. Outcomes remain fluid, especially with ongoing Iran talks.