Lawmakers and witnesses on both sides of the aisle at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday appeared open to a deal to permanently end Iran’s nuclear program, but also sounded increasingly supportive of potential U.S. military strikes to prevent the regime from obtaining nuclear weapons.

In comments directed at Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the committee chairman, said, “President Trump will work with you to peacefully end your nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program or President Trump will destroy your nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program.” 

“You get to choose,” Mast added.

“A nuclear Iran is not an option,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) agreed. “The safety of the American people and everything we love is dependent on our success here. One way or another, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are finished.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) said he wants to give Iran a deadline to end its nuclear program peacefully “or the United States should end it for them.”

“Now is the time to try to bring this to a peaceful solution,” Moskowitz said, “and that’s really up to the Iranians to choose what path they want to go.”

At the same time, he said he’s concerned that the administration is not sufficiently focused on the issue. Moskowitz added that he’s worried that isolationist elements in the administration, led by Vice President JD Vance, might not be willing to back strikes on Iran if they become necessary, citing Vance’s opposition to striking the Houthis. 

Meanwhile, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the committee, urged caution against an Israeli or American strike.

“A military strike on Iran is no easy task, not a sure thing, and comes with significant risk of escalating into a destructive regional conflict,” Meeks said. “It’s unlikely to deter Iran’s nuclear weapons aspirations for a significant period of time and could have enormous impacts on regional security as well as the United States and global economies … No military solution will permanently deny Iran the bomb, nor will it usher in a democratic Iranian government.”

He said the U.S. should keep diplomacy “on the table alongside credible threats” and that Trump was right to attempt diplomatic outreach to the Iranian regime.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who is aligned with the more isolationist wing of the Republican Party, argued that any potential ground war in Iran “is not our war to fight” and that the U.S. must turn its attention toward countering China.

“We cannot afford to continue to be bogged down in the Middle East for the United States,” Davidson said. “For the United States, an economy of force strategy in the Middle East makes sense, so that we can address American interests, while minimizing the American investment there. This allows us to focus on other strategic threats and more immediate security risks to our own country.”

Testifying as a witness, Dana Stroul, the research director at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who served in a senior Defense Department role in the Biden administration, argued that the U.S. currently has a window to test Iran’s openness to diplomacy while also preparing military strikes, which she said would delay but not end Iran’s nuclear program.

She suggested that Congress should begin work on conditionally authorizing the use of military force against Iran if it “proves unwilling to quickly take sufficient steps.”

“I don’t think this decision should be left to the president without advice and consent and consultation with Congress,” Stroul said, adding that she does not believe Congress should preemptively authorize strikes but rather discuss “the conditions and circumstances under which it would approve use of military force” to “send a signal of bipartisan consensus and commitment that a credible military option remains on the table, should negotiations fail.”

She said that Congress should also be regularly briefed on the status of Iran’s nuclear program and the specific potential military options in play.

Stroul said the U.S. should also pass intelligence to allies that would allow them to counter Iranian proxies.

Norman Roule, a senior advisor at United Against Nuclear Iran, warned that Iran has the capability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon in about a week, that its current stockpile is sufficient for seven nuclear weapons and that it may be able to produce enough nuclear material for ten weapons in a month.

“Iran has pretty much everything it needs to complete those last steps for its nuclear program,” Roule said. “Unforunately, the can has been kicked down the road for many years, and we’re at the end of the road. So it’s up to the Iranians to take those last steps, and they either come to a deal or they must face a military response.”

Roule agreed with Stroul that Congress should begin discussing the potential role the military could play in countering Iran, including in dismantling its Quds Force and proxies throughout the region. 

He also said the U.S. should target Quds Force assets inside Yemen as it continues its responses to Houthi strikes on international shipping.

Witnesses also urged continued and stronger enforcement of sanctions, with a particular focus on coordinated, rather than piecemeal, targeting of refineries in China that process Iranian oil and of companies that facilitate Iranian oil smuggling, among a range of other steps. They said increased cooperation with and from Europe on sanctions is also critical.

Claire Jungman, the chief of staff at UANI, added that the U.S. should look at targeting Iran’s cryptocurrency assets, which she said constitute a comparatively small but growing financial lifeline to the regime.