Cruz: ‘Giving billions of dollars to lunatics’ in Iran ‘is not a good idea’

Senator Ted Cruz’s sharp criticism of potential concessions to Iran in the context of reopening the Strait of Hormuz underscores a broader tension in U.S. foreign policy that has simmered since the 2015 nuclear deal—and which resurfaced with renewed urgency after President Trump’s recent engagement with the regime. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil transits, has long been a flashpoint in geopolitical conflict, particularly as Iran has repeatedly threatened to disrupt shipping in retaliation for sanctions or perceived provocations. Cruz’s framing of the issue as a matter of reckless largesse—“giving billions of dollars to lunatics”—reflects a deep skepticism among some conservatives about any policy that empowers the Islamic Republic, which they view as a destabilizing force in the Middle East and a state sponsor of terrorism. The debate over how to handle Iran is not new, but it has evolved in recent years. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated under President Obama, offered Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program—only for Trump to withdraw from the deal in 2018, citing its failures to address Iran’s broader malign activities. Since then, the U.S. has pursued a policy of “maximum pressure,” imposing sweeping economic sanctions while allowing tensions to escalate, including the targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Yet the recent talks around the strait suggest a possible pivot, one that could involve indirect or even direct negotiations with Tehran to stabilize a vital maritime corridor. Cruz’s warning implies that such concessions—whether financial or strategic—could be misinterpreted as weakness or, worse, as a reward for a regime that remains deeply hostile to American interests. What remains unclear is whether Trump’s approach represents a pragmatic shift or a perilous gamble. If Iran perceives any easing of pressure as a sign of retreat, it may double down on provocations elsewhere, from its proxy networks in Yemen and Lebanon to its nuclear advancements. Conversely, a failure to engage could leave the strait vulnerable to further disruption, with global oil markets and regional stability hanging in the balance. The question now is whether Cruz’s hawkish stance will gain traction in a GOP increasingly divided between isolationist impulses and a renewed willingness to confront adversaries head-on—and whether Trump’s next moves will be seen as diplomacy or capitulation.