Likely Republican challengers for the US presidency in 2016 voiced strong opposition to the outline of a nuclear deal with Iran, rejecting any
deal allowing Tehran to retain its nuclear facilities.
Republicans have, for the most part, aligned themselves with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in objecting to the proposed agreement, which falls short of forcing Iran to dismantle its nuclear programme.
Under Thursday’s preliminary deal, Tehran will retain its nuclear facilities, which it maintains are only for peaceful, power-generating purposes, but it must reduce, under stringent international surveillance, its capacity to enrich uranium, in return for sanctions being lifted.
Crowded field
Former Florida governor
Jeb Bush
, who is leading a crowded field of possible 2016 candidates, said the deal would “only legitimise” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. There was nothing in the outline of the deal that “would justify lifting US and international sanctions”, he said. “I cannot stand behind such a flawed agreement.”
President Barack Obama's former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, responded positively, if a little cautiously, to the framework of the deal ahead of a final agreement, to be signed by a June 30th deadline. Describing the tentative agreement as "an important step" in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, Mrs Clinton said: "The devil is always in the details in this kind of negotiation. The onus is on Iran and the bar must be set high."
Given the Republicans' control of US Congress, the strength of the party's opposition points to the uphill task Mr Obama faces in selling the accord.
Republican senator Marco Rubio, of Florida, a member of the influential Senate foreign relations committee, described the proposed deal as "very troubling". "This attempt to spin diplomatic failure as a success is just the latest example of this administration's farcical approach to Iran," said the prospective presidential candidate.
A bad deal
Texas senator
Ted Cruz
, the only major Republican to announce his presidential bid, called it “a bad deal”, while foreign-policy hawk Senator
Lindsey Graham
said the consequences of such an accord would be “unimaginable to our own national security”.
The New York Times described the preliminary deal as "promising" in an editorial, while the Washington Post's editorial board said that the "key parameters" of an agreement "fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration".
