Washington: A two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran announced by President Donald Trump has triggered sharply divided reactions across the US political spectrum, with some lawmakers backing diplomacy and others warning of dangerous escalation and lack of oversight.
According to the announcement, Washington and Tehran have agreed to pause hostilities, work out a 10-point proposal, and allow for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global energy corridor.
Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith welcomed the move, crediting military pressure for forcing negotiations.
“President Trump is to be commended for reaching a ceasefire agreement with Iran. Thanks to the great efforts of the US armed forces, Iran has been crippled and has been forced to the negotiating table,” he said.
Griffith underlined a key US objective, adding: “I support negotiations that lead to Iran never having nuclear capabilities.”
He also struck a sombre note, saying, “Also, I am praying for the Americans who gave their lives for their country and for their families. Their service is to be commended.”
Pennsylvania Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick framed the ceasefire as a cautious but necessary step.
“Diplomacy must always be the objective. The reported temporary ceasefire agreement is a constructive step toward that end, and we will continue to monitor developments closely,” he said.
“Any measure that protects American lives and creates space for serious peace negotiations is the right course, even as caution remains warranted.”
Fitzpatrick, however, reiterated longstanding concerns over Iran, stating: “There can be no ambiguity about the threat this regime poses or what is at stake: it must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon or the means to deliver one.”
He also emphasised oversight, saying Congress must ensure “rigorous congressional oversight as the situation develops.”
Senator Lindsey Graham signalled guarded support for diplomacy but warned against premature conclusions.
“As I stated before, I prefer diplomacy if it leads to the right outcome regarding the Iranian terrorist regime. I appreciate the hard work of all involved in trying to find a diplomatic solution,” he said.
“At this early stage, I am extremely cautious regarding what is fact vs. fiction or misrepresentation… Simply put, kick the tyres.”
But criticism from both sides of the aisle was swift.
Indiana Congressman Frank Mrvan accused the administration of acting without clear justification.
“The President’s unilateral actions in Iran are wrong, and his dangerous rhetoric is making a bad situation worse,” he said.
“While I recognise the Administration’s announcement of a ceasefire, the fact remains that there was no imminent threat, no clear objectives, no end in sight, and our servicemembers continue to be placed in harm’s way.”
Mrvan added that Americans were already “feeling the consequences at the gas pump and grocery store.”
California Congressman Kevin Kiley raised broader concerns about US conduct and congressional authority.
“The United States does not destroy civilisations. Nor do we threaten to do so as some sort of negotiating tactic,” he said, stressing that “Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight with respect to ongoing military operations.”
Senator Lisa Murkowski criticised the president’s rhetoric, warning it “cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations with Iran.”
“This type of rhetoric is an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years,” she said, adding that it “directly endangers Americans both abroad and at home.”
Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego echoed that concern, saying the US military “is the best in the world, not just because of our strength, but because we fight the right way. We follow the law and protect civilians.”
“Trump threatening to kill ‘a whole civilisation’ spits on everything we stand for and is flat out illegal,” he added.
The ceasefire comes amid heightened tensions in the Gulf region, where the Strait of Hormuz remains a vital chokepoint for global oil shipments. Any disruption there has immediate implications for global energy markets, including India, which relies heavily on crude imports from the region.
(IANS)
