Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat and longtime critic of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions, delivered a sharply worded critique of the administration’s emerging peace agreement with Iran on Sunday night, accusing Trump of effectively surrendering to Tehran while simultaneously arguing that ending the conflict is preferable to allowing the war to continue.
In a lengthy thread posted on X, Murphy acknowledged uncertainty about whether a final agreement would ultimately be completed, but argued that if the deal holds, it represents a significant retreat from the administration’s stated objectives.
“Who knows if there will be a final agreement. But if there is, two things will be true at the same time,” Murphy wrote. “a) It’s essentially surrender to Iran. b) We should be glad about it, because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker.”
The senator then launched into an extended explanation of why, despite his criticism of the agreement, he believes bringing the conflict to a close is the better outcome.
Murphy described the war as “disastrous” and argued that continuing military operations would only worsen the situation. He contended that prolonged fighting would weaken the United States, raise costs, strengthen Iran, and move Trump further away from achieving the goals he originally set for the conflict.
“More war would just make things worse,” Murphy wrote.
At the center of his criticism was the contention that Iran extracted major concessions while giving up very little in return. Murphy argued that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, often cited as a key component of the agreement, should not be viewed as a significant concession because the waterway had been open before hostilities began.
He further claimed that Iran’s ability to disrupt traffic through the strategic shipping corridor had increased the country’s leverage and influence.
Murphy also pointed to reports that Iran could receive access to billions of dollars in frozen funds. According to the senator, releasing such money before a broader nuclear agreement is finalized would reduce American negotiating leverage in future talks.
He argued that Iran appears to have made few commitments regarding its nuclear program beyond restating previous assurances that it would not pursue a nuclear weapon.
While Murphy welcomed the prospect of renewed negotiations, he maintained that a war was unnecessary to reach that point and asserted that the conflict ultimately strengthened Iran rather than weakening it.
The Connecticut senator also challenged the effectiveness of the military campaign itself. He argued that Iran’s governing hardliners remain in power, that the country still possesses missiles, drones, and a nuclear program, and that many of the administration’s objectives remain unmet.
Murphy contended that airstrikes were unlikely to eliminate heavily fortified missile and nuclear infrastructure and argued that drones are too mobile and difficult to target through an air campaign alone.
Throughout the thread, Murphy linked to multiple news reports from various outlets to support his claims.
In his final post, he reiterated his belief that Iran emerged from the conflict in a stronger position than before and accused Trump of failing to achieve his stated war aims.
Still, Murphy concluded by expressing hope that the fighting would remain over if the agreement is finalized.
“If the agreement actually gets signed,” he wrote, “be glad the war is over.”
Vice President JD Vance has stated that the agreement was signed electronically over the weekend. As of Monday, however, neither the text of the agreement nor additional details about its provisions had been publicly released.
[READ MORE: Trump Ties FISA Renewal to Stalled Voting Bill]
