AMNA NAWAZ: For more now, let's turn to a Republican former foreign policy official.

Michael Doran was senior director for the Middle East on the National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration.

He's now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

That's a Washington think tank.

Welcome.

Thanks for being here.

MICHAEL DORAN, Former National Security Council Staffer: Great to be here.

Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: I'm sure you have already seen some of the criticism from some in the president's own party.

Here's what Senator Bill Cassidy had to say about this framework deal.

He said: "Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works."

He also called it the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.

Do you agree with that?

MICHAEL DORAN: No, I don't agree with that.

From my perspective, it's a mixed bag, but I'm willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

He's gone to war against Iran and its proxies three times just in this term, once against the Houthis, Operation Midnight Hammer, and now Epic Fury.

I think he's really done more to degrade Iran's capabilities than any other president, and I think we should give him a little leeway.

AMNA NAWAZ: With this agreement, though, Iran is now saying it won't work towards a nuclear weapon, the state of Hormuz is open.

Both of those were true before the war.

So what's fundamentally changed?

MICHAEL DORAN: Well, what's fundamentally changed is that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed, for all intents and purposes, and they're not enriching uranium.

And I think the most important clause of the memorandum of understanding is that the nuclear status quo will remain in place as long as the MOU is in place.

So as long as they're negotiating, there's not going to be any enrichment.

That's a fundamentally different quality that we have had with Iran since they started enriching uranium in 2006.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have wrote about this in a piece recently that the agreement buys the U.S.

time to allow ships to leave the Persian Gulf, also time for the U.S.

to rearm, to replenish its stockpiles, and get ready to attack Iran again, as President Trump has threatened to do if they don't comply with the deal.

Doesn't that timeline also allow for Iran to replenish its stockpiles and get ready?

MICHAEL DORAN: Yes and no.

I think we have the upper hand there, because, like I said, number one, they're not enriching uranium, so we don't have that pressure on us.

And then we can also see what they're doing with missiles and with proxies.

And if they start to misbehave, then we can strike them.

And they know that.

They're under enormous economic pressure when we have a kind of economic choke hold on them.

So I think that there is a -- we don't have to be -- we have a little bit of room for error here and we can test and see where this will go.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned the missiles and the proxies, though, as Liz Landers has pointed out in her report, there's no language about stopping support for proxies in the region in this framework deal.

And the president has seemed to walk back that goal of ending their missile capability.

They were striking allies in the region just a couple of weeks ago.

How are allies in the region safer now?

MICHAEL DORAN: Well, the number one thing he's -- the president is focused on is ending a nuclear -- a nuclear Iran.

I don't actually believe that this larger framework is ever going to come into being.

I think the Iranians are going to behave the way they always do.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mean a larger deal on the nuclear ambitions?

MICHAEL DORAN: On -- yes, on all of it.

I think this is really basically, in essence, a deal to open up the strait and to relieve -- to allow the Iranians to sell some oil, get some frozen assets returned to them in return for allowing us to get all of our allies' oil out.

It pushes all of the larger issues into the distance.

I think we're going to be in MOU land.

I mean, we have 60 days of an MOU, which is renewable, and we're supposed to negotiate this larger deal during that time.

I think what we're going to find is that, six months from now, we're still going to be in MOU land.

And that's OK with me if we're still in MOU land.

MOU land can go on forever, because they're not enriching uranium while that's happening.

AMNA NAWAZ: We have heard the president explicitly say oil supplies would be depleted in a matter of weeks if the war had gone on.

In your view, did domestic energy and political pressures force the president to make a deal at this moment?

MICHAEL DORAN: I think so.

I think it was the three ends.

It was markets, munitions, and midterm elections.

So he was looking at a spike in oil prices and he was worried about the effect that that would have on the midterms.

But, also, he's concerned about the expenditure of interceptors that -- we don't know the exact numbers.

I mean, this is one of the things the best kept secrets, but it's not a secret that we went - - we burned through a lot of our interceptors.

And that made a lot of our allies nervous around the world.

AMNA NAWAZ: Michael Doran of The Hudson Institute, thank you so much for being here today.

We appreciate your time.

MICHAEL DORAN: Thank you.