Trump ally defends decision to call off Iran strike despite being 'locked and loaded'

WASHINGTON, DC: Sen James Lankford said on Sunday, August 2, that President Donald Trump called off planned strikes on Iran because his goal remains securing a deal rather than launching a broader military campaign.

The Oklahoma Republican defended Trump's decision after the president said US forces had been "locked and loaded" before he canceled the attack following what he described as Iran's agreement to the "perimeters" of a deal.

Lankford argued the threat of overwhelming force was intended to push Tehran toward negotiations. That explanation comes as the administration seeks to justify Trump's high-stakes diplomatic approach.

James Lankford says force meant to drive diplomacy

Appearing on 'Fox News Sunday', Lankford told host Shannon Bream that Trump was still trying to reach an agreement with Tehran despite keeping military options on the table.

"The president's still focused on trying to be able to get a deal," Lankford said.

He insisted the administration was not seeking war even as it demonstrated its military capability.

"We have the capability to be able to bomb them back to the Stone Age, but there's no desire to be able to do that," Lankford said. "We use military force, and the president's been very careful on using military force only to be able to get them to the table to actually negotiate."

Late Saturday, Trump announced on Truth Social that although US forces remained "locked and loaded" for strikes against Iran, he had decided to cancel the attack after Iran and other Middle Eastern nations urged restraint and Iranian officials agreed to what he called the "perimeters" of a deal.

Trump wrote that the proposed agreement would include the "Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran's nuclear threat."

Trump points to deal conditions

The president said his decision was based on what he described as a diplomatic opening.

"Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL," Trump wrote, adding that the Israeli government supported the move.

Lankford echoed those goals, saying the two core elements of any agreement should be restoring access through the Strait of Hormuz and limiting Iran's nuclear program.

He said those conditions should "not be unrealistic expectations for any civilized nation."

The war, launched by the US and Israel in late February with the stated goal of eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities, has also disrupted global energy markets.

The Hill reported that Iran's restrictions on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to higher fuel prices, with AAA reporting that the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in the US was about $1.10 higher on Sunday than it was two days before the conflict began.

James Lankford acknowledges Iran trust concerns

Lankford also acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding negotiations, noting that Trump has previously announced agreements only for fighting to continue after Iranian officials rejected his overtures.

Calling Iran's government a "lying, deceptive dictatorship," the senator nevertheless defended Trump's strategy, saying, "Usually diplomacy is the best way to be able to resolve it long term. But when you have to use force to get people to do diplomacy, you have to use force."