Pro-Israel senators on both sides of the aisle emphasized the need for a military option to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program when asked on Tuesday about President Donald Trump’s outreach last week to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Trump’s letter to the Iranian dictator, accompanied by a threat of military action, was his most direct overture toward new diplomatic talks with Tehran thus far but was rejected by Khamenei himself, and has also found a skeptical reception among some conservative pro-Israel figures in Washington.

“I think it’s time to go to Plan B: help the Israelis eliminate the nuclear [program],” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told Jewish Insider.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told JI that he believed any negotiations with Iran should meet several conditions. 

“I’ll leave it up to the president how to solve the Iranian nuclear problem, but if he does negotiate, he needs to put it on a time clock and define what a successful outcome would look like. To me, a successful outcome would be that Iran gives up enrichment,” Graham said, noting that the Iranians “have enough highly enriched uranium to make six bombs.”

Graham added that he’d want Iran to “turn that [the enriched uranium] over to the international community; I’m willing to pay for it, but get out of the enrichment business. They can get fuel rods from Russia, China or other groups to run their civilian nuclear reactors. The United Arab Emirates has a nuclear power program, they don’t enrich. Without enrichment, you can’t make a bomb.”

“Over 40 nations have nuclear power programs, but they don’t make their own fuel. You should put Iran into that category. No state sponsor of terrorism should be allowed to enrich uranium. That would be a deal I could live with, I think Israel could live with. If they’re still in the enrichment business, it is a bad deal,” Graham explained. “The most likely scenario to deal with their nuclear program, I believe, is going to be a military strike by Israel, which we should support.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said Trump writing to Khamenei was “his prerogative,” but noted that he believed in a different approach. 

“I fully support destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities. I think I would do my talking with some munitions. I think that’s what’s appropriate,” Fetterman told JI. 

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-ND) said that the U.S. will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon,  stating, “They can either agree not to have a nuclear weapon or it will probably be taken out of their hands.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said that “what we need to do is make sure they don’t get a nuclear weapon.”

“We’ve got to do everything we can to make sure they don’t get a nuclear weapon,” Scott continued. “You can’t have a nuclear weapon, period. Whatever it takes.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said that it’s “smart” for Trump to take initiative and open talks because “what we have isn’t working,” arguing that diplomacy is the best initial route for the administration to take.

“We’re not going to allow them to get a nuclear weapon. I think opening dialogue and conversation is the best option first,” Mullin continued.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) was skeptical that new talks would come to fruition, given the Ayatollah’s rejection of Trump’s outreach.

“A nuclear-armed Iran has to be stopped, and if they won’t negotiate, other options need to be on the table,” Blumenthal said. “We need to coordinate with Israel, our closest ally in the region, but the Arab nations as well, who have an equal stake in stopping a nuclear-armed Iran.”

He called opposition to a nuclear Iran “the central point and the unifying principle of Middle East peace and stability.”

Some Democratic lawmakers are more supportive of the outreach and the prospect of talks.

“Communication never guarantees anything, but the absence of communication is usually a bad thing,” Kaine said. “I wasn’t completely surprised. I don’t have a problem with it and it’s probably good that the president did it. I wasn’t surprised that it got rebuffed right away, but that doesn’t mean that in a month, or six months, or a year, things can’t be different.”