Former Vice President Mike Pence is blasting President Donald Trump’s controversial Iran agreement, warning that the deal looks less like a victory and more like a dangerous concession to a regime that was already on its knees.

In a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pence praised Trump’s military campaign against Tehran but argued the administration is now squandering the leverage won on the battlefield.

“The president deserves tremendous credit for taking the fight directly to Tehran,” Pence wrote. “But the memorandum of understanding with Iran signed last week falls well short of what is required to end the Iranian threat.”

His verdict was blunt.

“It smacks of the kind of appeasement the president rightly rejected during our first term,” Pence said. “It isn’t the deal a defeated Iran should be getting. It isn’t even a deal — it’s a plan to make a plan.”

The remarkable rebuke puts Pence at the forefront of a growing conservative revolt against the Trump administration’s newly signed 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran.

The agreement, signed last week, commits both sides to negotiate a final settlement within 60 days while immediately easing pressure on Tehran. The framework includes the gradual lifting of the U.S. naval blockade, waivers for Iranian oil exports, and access to frozen Iranian assets while broader negotiations continue.

Critics argue the concessions come before Iran has verifiably dismantled its nuclear infrastructure or ended support for terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East.

Pence warned the agreement effectively rewards the regime before securing meaningful concessions.

“Maximum pressure worked. America’s military strength worked. The blockade worked,” Pence wrote. “Iran came to the table because the regime’s existence teetered on a knife’s edge.”

The former vice president said the administration should use the next 60 days to force Tehran into accepting far tougher terms, including the permanent elimination of its nuclear ambitions and support for regional terror groups.

“This 60-day period should be used to secure what this agreement doesn’t yet provide: an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, an end to Iranian-backed terror, and an end to its half-century of warfare against the U.S. and Israel,” Pence wrote.

“If those reasonable goals cannot be achieved, Mr. Trump should let the armed forces finish the job.”

Pence has doubled down on those concerns in television appearances this week, calling the agreement “much bigger than a mistake” and warning that sanctions relief could become “a lifeline to the Iranian regime.” He argued that the deal preserves the status quo on Iran’s nuclear program rather than forcing its dismantlement.

He’s not alone.

Republican lawmakers including Lindsey Graham, John Thune and other GOP hawks have demanded greater transparency about the agreement’s terms, while conservative commentators have compared the framework to the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned during his first administration.

Even some Democrats have questioned whether Tehran is receiving significant economic relief without providing ironclad guarantees on nuclear compliance.

Supporters of the agreement, led by Vice President JD Vance, argue critics are mischaracterizing the deal. Vance has described the memorandum as a preliminary framework designed to stop the fighting and create conditions for a broader settlement. The White House insists sanctions relief and other benefits ultimately depend on Iranian compliance.

But for Pence, the issue is simple: America already holds the stronger hand.

The question now is whether Trump intends to play it.