Newsmax host says a reported potential deal with Iran “sounds like a pretty bad deal”
Rob Schmitt: “A deal that ends the Iranian blockade before nuclear negotiations even begin? That would make no sense. It would be a gift to a lying regime before we obtain anything tangible at all.”
Published
Citation
From the May 28, 2026, edition of Newsmax's Rob Schmitt Tonight
ROB SCHMITT (HOST): So late this morning, you probably saw the news. It broke from several different outlets. Negotiators from both Iran and the United States had agreed on this much anticipated memorandum of understanding, which is what they've been calling it. The media claiming that it's essentially a deal before the deal to open up the Strait of Hormuz for everyone. The media and Axios reporting that includes Iran as well, opening up the strait for everybody. Axios reporting the deal will extend the ceasefire, allow unrestricted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which will get our oil prices down, and begin nuclear negotiations. They said the deal now awaits approval from the president of the United States.
But if Axios and other outlets actually have the facts straight on this, which we don't know that they do, the question would be if they did, why would he ever sign a deal like this? A deal that ends the Iranian blockade before nuclear negotiations even begin? That would make no sense. It would be a gift to a lying regime before we obtain anything tangible at all.
So as this stirred around for a couple hours, we all waited for the press briefing today. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent actually handled the media for Karoline Leavitt today. It was kind of tough to decipher where we're at with this thing, but his clarification, I thought, indicates that the media doesn't exactly have the full story straight.
...
SCHMITT: So without saying it, you know, too explicitly about exactly what this is, Bessent did maintain that the deal being reported is potentially a bit off the mark. Perhaps the Strait of Hormuz would open, but the blockade on Iran would remain until we get the uranium out of the country, which is not being reported at all by these media outlets about what this potential deal looks like. What Bessent explained would actually make a lot more sense. Right? Why would you reward the endlessly lying and evil terror regime that is running the nation of Iran before it actually gives us anything tangible?
...
SCHMITT: The deal being reported in the media by Axios, others, it actually sounds like a pretty bad deal, something you wouldn't want to sign. Ending the blockade on Iran with just a promise to negotiate nuclear in the future — that can't be what this is. Right?