Tom Cotton

You know a Trump administration plan is bad when even Tom Cotton has reservations.

In our ongoing effort to provide readers with some distinctions between political candidates, we reached out to Cotton, Arkansas’ junior U.S. senator, and 2nd District Congressman French Hill, both Republicans.

We also reached out to their Democratic opponents to ask what they thought about the Iran peace plan that President Trump signed off on. Hallie Shoffner is looking to unseat Cotton, and Chris Jones would like to do the same thing to Hill. Not surprisingly, Shoffner and Jones had concerns about it. The breaking news, however, is that Cotton, who has made a career of looking at his shoes when Trump does something outrageously awful – does his neck hurt? – actually expressed his own dismay with the plan. Whoa, stop the presses.

“We know that this terrorist, revolutionary regime is not going to spend that money on daycares or on (a) hospital,” he said during a Fox News interview, referring to part of the peace plan. “They’re going to use it to rebuild their drone stockpiles, their missiles, to fund Hamas, and to fund Hezbollah.” Cotton also called the deal “stepping in the wrong direction.”

This is from a politician who has for years been itching for the United States to take aggressive action against Iran. But in the wake of the United States doing just that, Cotton was one of several Republicans who expressed displeasure over the end result, specifically the president’s 14-point memorandum of understanding, which put money back in Iran’s pockets and took the United States largely off their backs.

As has been widely reported, the peace deal fell far short of what was promised by Trump. No unconditional surrender by Iran and no regime change. Iran also gets to keep its missile program despite Trump’s assurances to destroy it. The plan also unfreezes billions in Iranian assets, lifts some sanctions and sidesteps entirely the issue of Iran’s support of its proxy military groups across the Middle East.

Neither Cotton nor his office got back to us regarding our questions for the senator, despite emails and a phone call. The same was true for Hill, who, like Cotton, rarely utters a discouraging word about the art-of-the-deal guy. Other Republicans, however, especially those who aren’t running for reelection or who are otherwise lame ducks, have been vocal in expressing what a great deal this is for Iran and what an awful deal it is for the United States and the rest of the Middle East.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) called the peace plan with Iran the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

He was hardly alone. A headline in The Hill publication said: “Senate Republicans in somber, pessimistic mood over Trump deal with Iran.”

So what did Shoffner and Jones have to say about the plan? Quite a lot. We’ll take them one at a time:

Hallie Shoffner

Shoffner, as is her style, took the question about the Iran peace plan and put it into Arkansas-centric terms. The plan’s easing of sanctions against Iran and the unfreezing of its assets does nothing for America or Arkansas in particular, she said.

“I find it very ironic,” Shoffner said. “Iran gets $300 billion, but Arkansas gets zero. People can’t pay their rent, can’t afford to go to the doctor or buy groceries or pay their utility bills. As this war has gone on, it seems perfectly clear that Tom Cotton has not been fighting for the best interests of Arkansans. Eighty percent of farmers feel like they can’t afford to farm this year. And that goes directly to what’s going on in the Middle East.”

She said that during the war, Cotton has tried “to make political points in Washington.”

“People here feel like no one is showing up for them,” Shoffner said. “And they’re right. When I’m the next senator, I will look at everything through an Arkansas lens because that’s the job. How does it impact the citizens of Arkansas for the better? And if it doesn’t, I’m going to stand up and say something.”

That lens, she says, shows her that families in Arkansas are hurting now.

“Arkansans feel it when they fill up their cars, farmers feel it when they can’t afford fertilizer, and small businesses feel it when there are supply chain problems,” she said. “I do support efforts to keep Americans safe, but I also support foreign policies that work.”

Shoffner said that, as she has traveled the state, she has gotten no questions about the latest negotiation with Iran, “but I have had people ask why everything is so expensive.”

Two weeks ago, she said, she was disturbed by something she heard in a pizza restaurant in El Dorado.

“The owner, who is not a Tom Cotton fan, said he couldn’t buy tomatoes because they are $70 a box,” Shoffner said. “That’s the kind of pressure Arkansans are under. Those are the stories that should inform our foreign policy agenda. … No one has a good thing to say about Tom Cotton, and that’s because he’s not doing his job, which is to represent the people of Arkansas.”

Chris Jones

Jones said a question for Congress is whether the agreement “delivers anything materially different from what was available before the conflict began.”

“We know the framework being discussed could ultimately unlock as much as $300 billion in investment [for Iran],” Jones said. “That is more than twice as much as the $113 billion dollars spent over the last 118 days of the conflict. We know sanctions relief and renewed oil revenues could provide substantial economic benefits to the Iranian government.”

And even though the shooting has stopped, the war-related inflation will continue, he said.

“The economic impact of conflict doesn’t end with a ceasefire,” Jones said. “Higher energy costs work their way through supply chains, transportation networks, and manufacturing. Arkansas families often feel those costs long after the headlines fade.”

Jones also asked what the United States is getting in return.

“How will compliance be verified?” he asked. “How will violations be enforced? Most importantly, does this agreement actually prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and reduce the likelihood of another costly conflict? Those are serious commitments, which means the American people deserve serious answers.”

Jones said one of the lessons from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, negotiated and put in place under the Obama Administration – but torn up during the first Trump Administration – is that trust is not enough.

“As a scientist and engineer, I start with evidence,” Jones said. “Verification matters.”

Jones said the point was brought home to him because one of his graduate school advisers at MIT, former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, led negotiations for that agreement.

“Whether you supported the [Iran deal] or opposed it, the goal was clear: use inspections, verification and accountability to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon while avoiding another war,” Jones said. “The agreement being discussed today appears to pursue some of those same objectives, but the world is very different than it was a decade ago. The region is more volatile, trust is lower, and the economic stakes appear significantly larger. The question is not whether a deal has been announced. The question is whether it works.”

Jones said Hill owes it to the citizens in the 2nd District to fully explain his thoughts on this newest peace plan.

“Leadership means being willing to explain your position and be accountable for it,” Jones said. “On an issue involving war, nuclear weapons, national security, and billions of taxpayer dollars, Arkansans deserve an answer. French Hill was very vocal about the last Iran nuclear agreement. Now, Arkansans are still waiting to hear where he stands on this one. …If he supports this agreement, he should say so. If he opposes it, he should say that, too.”