WSJ and Republican Senators Criticize Trump's Deal with Iran
Fox News sources report that the framework agreement between the US and Iran is 95% ready, but 'hawks' in Congress and the Israeli government are trying to derail the signing, calling the terms 'treacherous' and demanding the inclusion of nuclear restrictions.
'Treacherous Deal': Why WSJ and Republican Criticism Is a Signal to Buy Oil
While headlines scream about a political scandal — the Wall Street Journal calls Trump's deal with Iran a 'betrayal,' Republican senators threaten sabotage, and Trump himself calls critics 'losers' — professional traders see a completely different picture. They see profit-taking on long oil positions and opportunities to enter before the final rally.
The statements from the WSJ on May 24 and from Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and Roger Wicker are not just political rhetoric. This is public bargaining conducted in full view of the market, with a specific goal: to extract additional concessions from the deal or, at worst, delay its signing. But for a financial analyst, what matters is what remains behind the scenes of the loud quotes.
[The Gist]: What's Really Happening
According to Fox News, citing sources in the administration, the framework agreement between the US and Iran is 95% ready. Only 'wording' remains on two issues: what to do with Iran's accumulated highly enriched uranium and how exactly the Strait of Hormuz will be opened.
The basic parameters of the deal, which are not mentioned in the news but are known in investment banks:
- Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz and restores shipping to pre-war levels within 30 days.
- The US and allies cease military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.
- The US unfreezes Iranian assets — estimated at $6 to $20 billion (of which $6 billion is in Qatar).
- Iran commits to negotiate on its nuclear program within 60 days, but without prior commitments on the outcome.
It is this last point — 'negotiations about negotiations' — that infuriates the 'hawks.' Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, whose name appears in the context of criticism, called it 'a plan to pay the IRGC money for building a nuclear weapon.'
[Timeline and Context]
- May 23-24, 2026: The Trump administration, through leaks to Fox News, announces that the deal is 95% ready and Iran has 'agreed in principle.'
- May 24, evening: The WSJ publishes an editorial titled 'Will Trump Save Iran's Regime?' calling the economic concessions a 'betrayal.'
- May 25, morning: Trump on Truth Social calls critics 'losers' who 'know nothing about the deal because it hasn't even been fully finalized yet.'
- May 25, afternoon: Senator Roger Wicker (chairman of the Armed Services Committee) states that 'a 60-day truce based on faith in Iran's goodwill would be a disaster.'
- May 26 (today): Senator Lindsey Graham warns: if Iran retains the ability to destroy Gulf oil infrastructure, it will be perceived as a 'dominant force.'
[Who Wins and Who Loses]
Winner — Qatar.
Not obvious, but the main beneficiary. Of the $6-20 billion in frozen Iranian assets to be unfrozen, according to The Irish Times, part is held in Qatari banks. Doha will gain not only transit fees but also political capital as a mediator. The Qatari sovereign wealth fund has likely already secured contracts for the initial purchase of Iranian oil after sanctions are lifted — at a discount to market price.
Winner — Traders who opened short positions on oil before the criticism news.
They profited from Brent's drop from $99 to $96 after the market realized the deal could fall through or be delayed. Volatility is their best friend.
Loser — The Trump administration.
Every day the deal is delayed is another day the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and Trump's campaign promises to 'solve everything in a week' look naive. Trump already gave Iran '5-7 days' to think it over on May 24.
Loser — Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
He is trapped. On one hand, he publicly agreed with Trump that 'the nuclear threat must be eliminated.' On the other, he understands that the deal leaves Iran with both nuclear capabilities and regional influence. His only leverage is to demand that the US exclude Lebanon from the ceasefire agreement so he can continue striking Hezbollah. But Iran is unlikely to agree to that.
[What the Media Isn't Saying]
Insight: Behind the loud criticism from the WSJ and Republicans is not concern for US national security, but a struggle over the allocation of quotas for post-war Iranian oil between American oil lobbyists and their Gulf allies.
Why am I so sure? The WSJ's main argument: 'If Iran is allowed to sell oil freely again, the only remaining leverage will be the threat of a new war.' But who loses the most from Iran's return to the market? American shale producers.
Iran could quickly ramp up exports by 1-1.5 million barrels per day. At the current Brent price of around $95, that means additional revenue for Tehran of $90-140 million per day. But for US shale oil producers (whose break-even is often above $60-70 per barrel), it means lower prices. Their lobbyists in Congress (those same Republican senators) are now doing everything to either prevent the deal or include strict quotas on Iranian exports.
But they will lose. Trump needs a deal at any cost — to lower inflation before the elections. And Rubio has already stated that 'either we have a good deal, or we will have to act in another way.' The threat of a military opening of the strait without a deal is insurance, but it also pressures Iran.
[Forecast: Next 30 and 90 Days]
30 days:
- The deal will likely be signed in the first ten days of June. Trump cannot afford its failure — the stakes are too high for his ratings and for global inflation.
- But the 'hawks' will achieve one thing: the asset freeze will be lifted in stages, tied to Iran's implementation of specific steps on the nuclear program. This will delay the full opening of the strait by 60-90 days.
- Brent oil will trade in the range of $92-$102 with high volatility. Every statement from Senator Graham will cause a -2% drop, every denial from the White House a +2% rise.
90 days:
- If the deal is signed in June, by August-September the strait will be fully open, Iranian oil will hit the market, and Brent prices will fall to $78-$85 per barrel.
- If the deal collapses due to pressure from the 'hawks' (20-25% probability), Rubio's military scenario becomes real. A short-term spike in oil to $115-$120, then a crash — but such a scenario would cause irreparable damage to US credibility as a negotiator.
Editorial Forecast
- Asset: Brent oil (futures)
- Movement: Short-term decline in the next 24–72 hours to $94–$96 per barrel amid political uncertainty and profit-taking
- Key levels: Current value ~$96.80, support at $94.50, resistance at $98.20. A break below $94 opens the path to $91
- Confidence level: Medium (65%)
- Main risk: A sudden announcement of the deal's signing 'in the coming hours' — if Trump decides to outmaneuver critics and declare victory before they can organize a congressional vote, Brent could jump to $99-$100 on news of the strait's unblocking, then fall to $93 within 48 hours after details are analyzed.
Analytical opinion, not individual investment advice.
— Editorial Team
