What Editorials Are Saying About the Iran Deal

The editorial boards of major newspapers are weighing in on President Trump's peace deal with Iran, and it's likely Trump won't like the results:

• Wall Street Journal: The editors have been supportive of the war, asserting that the "media critics and Democrats who now savage the President would have stood by while a nuclear bomb became a fait accompli." Still, "there's no denying that Mr. Trump is retreating from his main goals as political pressure has built at home." The US blockade was working, but Trump didn't want to deal with high energy prices much longer, the board writes. "This is his choice, not a strategic imperative." It wants Congress to review and reject a deal "if it props up a regime that still says, 'Death to America.'" Read it in full.

• New York Times: The board's take, under a headline of "President Trump Lost This War," is scathing. "Trump made a terrible mistake starting this war," the editors write. "He prosecuted it recklessly and in open defiance of the law. The United States is emerging weaker—militarily, diplomatically and economically—and will pay strategic costs for years to come." The board blames Trump for being swayed by Benjamin Netanyahu's prediction that Iran's leadership would crumble. Now, Trump has "agreed to a peace framework that the entire world understands is a defeat for him. It is a setback for America, too." Read it in full.
• Washington Post: The editors find that there are too many unanswered questions about the deal at the moment to assess it properly. The most likely explanation for why it hasn't been released is that "the document is vague and little more than an agreement to keep negotiating over thorny issues," writes the board. Solution? Release it immediately. "If it's a good deal for America, Trump is losing control of the narrative for no good reason. If it's not, the public deserves to know." Read it in full.