President Donald Trump’s proposed agreement with Iran is facing criticism from some of his most loyal conservative allies, who argue the current framework gives Tehran significant concessions before securing the complete dismantling of its nuclear capabilities.

The 14-point framework agreement, unveiled Wednesday, establishes an immediate ceasefire between the United States and Iran and includes several major provisions: reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing the U.S. naval blockade, temporarily allowing Iranian oil exports, restoring access to frozen Iranian assets, and committing both sides to negotiate a final agreement within 60 days.

The proposal also outlines an economic reconstruction package reportedly worth at least $300 billion and includes Iran’s renewed commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons.

But critics inside the conservative movement point to what they see as major unanswered questions.

According to concerns raised about the framework, the agreement does not require the immediate dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the removal of enriched uranium stockpiles, limits on Tehran’s ballistic missile program, or the disbanding of Iranian-backed proxy groups such as Hezbollah.

Supporters raising objections argue that negotiations should secure stronger guarantees before major economic and strategic concessions move forward. After all, promises on paper and realities on the ground have not always been famous for matching perfectly.

At the same time, the framework leaves open a 60-day window for further negotiations, meaning supporters and critics alike will be watching closely to see whether stronger conditions emerge in a final agreement.

For now, the debate reflects a familiar principle among conservatives: peace is strongest when it is backed by leverage, clear conditions, and American strength at the negotiating table.