Senate Republicans offered mixed reactions to reports that the Trump administration is considering dropping its demand for direct talks with Iran and acceding to Tehran’s offer of indirect mediated nuclear negotiations.

Some Republicans are largely opposed to any talks with the regime, while others say they should come with strict conditions and demands.

Axios reported on Wednesday that Trump is considering Iran’s demand for indirect nuclear talks, in spite of his previous insistence on direct negotiations. Some in Washington believe Iran used indirect talks with the Biden administration to buy time to further their nuclear program without seriously pursuing a diplomatic solution. 

The White House is also reportedly considering abandoning efforts to pursue negotiations altogether.

Separately, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff responded, “Great,” to a post by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claiming that Iran has never sought to obtain nuclear weapons and that there is “no such thing” as a military option for eliminating Iran’s nuclear program.

Witkoff subsequently deleted that post, and the White House did not respond to Jewish Insider’s request for comment on the post.

Several GOP senators expressed skepticism to the notion that Tehran was willing to meaningfully engage on the nuclear issue.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he “100%” believed that any discussions with the Iranian regime would be the wrong move. “I don’t think there’s such a thing as a deal to be had with the mullahs. Yeah. I mean, they’re about as trustworthy as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, and I think my position on Putin is pretty well understood.”

“If it moves through like [former President Barack] Obama did it, as a memorandum of understanding, there’s nothing we can do about it, but it’s hard for me to imagine any deal with the current regime that I would support as a matter of policy on the Senate floor,” Tillis added when asked if he’d be willing to vote for such a deal. “The Iranians’ behavior didn’t change with the JCPOA. Why do we think their behavior is going to change now? They are liars and they are murderers. They want America to die. They want Israel to die. End of story.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) predicted that the talks would end in failure. 

“Well, I think if that’s what the president and Israel need to reach what I think is the correct conclusion, that they’re not interested in negotiating, they ought to go ahead and do that, but I think what they’ll find out is they aren’t. They are not willing to give up their nuclear program, and we ought to help Israel eliminate it,” Cornyn told JI.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said that while she wasn’t particularly shocked by the potential negotiations, she cautioned against trusting the Iranian regime. 

“Let’s put it this way, it doesn’t surprise me because we’ve seen some unprecedented reach outs. We certainly have seen it between President Trump and Putin himself, calls that have been made that people are like, ‘Woah, OK.’ So I guess I’m not surprised. I would be very cautious,” Murkowski told JI.

Other senators said they’re conditionally open to talks.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told JI that, “I’d love to see Iran agree. We can do this the easy way, the hard way. Iran’s got two choices. They can stop, or they can go forward. If they go forward and get a weapon, Israel is going to jump on them and there’s going to be a war. It’s just that simple.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said that talks must be focused on denying Iran any pathway to a nuclear weapon, rather than delaying it like the previous nuclear deal.

“If the goal is to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon, then I’m all for that,” Collins said. “I did not like the previous Iranian deal, because first of all, it was sunseted. Second, it gave them all sorts of money and they ended up in a stronger position in the long run, as is evidenced by the fact that they’ve been able to enrich the uranium so quickly. So it really depends on what the goal is.” 

Other Senate Republicans declined to comment on the situation on record, but expressed willingness to give Trump and his advisors space to try and work out some type of arrangement, even if they distrust the Iranian regime. 

“Initially, it always gives me pause to consider something like this, but I’ve also learned with Donald Trump that he sees Iran’s problems pretty well, and I think Russia can become an example. Honestly, I think sometimes when Donald Trump talks favorably about Putin or it seems like that’s what he’s doing, it’s because he’s already seen what they’re doing and he’s setting them up for his own [benefit],” one senator said. 

“[He’s] different than Ronald Reagan, but it’s like when he would cozy up to and act friendly with Mikhail Gorbachev, despite that he led a nation he referred to as an Evil Empire. I don’t think we have much concern that Trump’s been open to talking with [Iran] given the fact that he’s still taking them on. He’s been sending a pretty strong message,” the senator added.

“There’s two sides of it. One side is, you don’t get things done without a talk. I’m a deal guy, so the only way you get things done is that. But historically, the regime, they just placate people. I don’t know enough of the facts, I have to find out if they’ve committed to things ahead of time or not. You can’t imagine the Iranian regime is going to be doing anything logical,” another senator said.