WASHINGTON, DC - Lawmakers in both chambers of the US Congress expressed a mix of cautious optimism, skepticism, and sharp partisan division over the prospects of a potential deal between the United States and Iran in interviews with Rudaw on Wednesday.
While several members said diplomacy remains the only viable path forward, others emphasized the need to maintain pressure on Tehran, reflecting broader disagreements in Washington over how to address the escalating crisis.
Democratic Congressman Johnny Olszewski stressed the urgent need for negotiations, citing the growing cost of the conflict for Americans.
“We need to have this resolved by diplomacy,” Olszewski said, pointing to rising economic burdens and military casualties. “We have to find a path forward … that resolves this for Americans but also for the world.”
However, he criticized the current approach by President Donald Trump, arguing that the administration lacks a clear strategy both during and after the conflict. Despite these concerns, he underscored that any deal must ensure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons and that key global trade routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, remain open.
Republicans, by contrast, largely voiced support for the administration’s hardline stance.
Congressman Greg Murphy said he hopes a deal will emerge but framed the issue in terms of internal change within Iran.
“I hope their people will rise up and stop the insanity of this radical Islamic government,” Murphy said, arguing that previous policies of engagement had failed.
Murphy also backed Trump’s negotiating approach, describing him as “a great negotiator” and suggesting that sustained pressure could push Tehran toward an agreement.
Similarly, Congressman Troy Nehls called for continued pressure, saying the United States must “stay firm” and leverage its position.
“We have them on their knees,” Nehls said. “We need to keep up the pressure … to get Iran to come up with a deal that works for the United States.”
He added that Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons - a point that drew rare bipartisan consensus among lawmakers.
On the Democratic side, criticism focused heavily on the administration’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Congressman Don Beyer said a new agreement will likely resemble the 2015 deal.
“At the end of the day, we will probably have a deal much like the JCPOA,” Beyer said, arguing that abandoning it led to unnecessary conflict and economic disruption. He described the current approach as “terrible,” citing increased global instability and high costs without achieving a resolution.
Beyer urged the administration to extend the current ceasefire, which was extended by Trump on Tuesday, and prioritize negotiations, noting that diplomatic solutions often take time.
Other Democrats raised concerns about congressional oversight. Congressman Scott Peters said the administration has failed to consult Congress, calling the military campaign unauthorized.
“They didn’t ask for permission … they haven’t kept us updated,” Peters said, adding that Congress may exert leverage when future funding requests are submitted.
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon echoed criticism of Trump’s decision to exit the nuclear deal.
“We had a deal with Iran … this president blew it up," she said.
Meanwhile, Republicans such as Congressman Marlin Stutzman suggested that the prospects for any agreement depend heavily on Iran’s internal leadership.
“If it’s still the same extreme ideology … it’s not going to work,” Stutzman said, adding that Iran must end support for regional proxy groups and abandon longstanding anti-Western policies.
Despite sharp disagreements over strategy, lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remains a shared objective.
The debate comes as President Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire on Tuesday without setting a deadline, citing ongoing diplomatic efforts and requests from international actors, including Pakistan, to allow time for negotiations.
Whether those talks will lead to a breakthrough remains uncertain, but members of Congress agree on one point: the stakes, both for the United States and the wider region, are exceptionally high.