Senate Republicans maintained the position on Monday that Iran should never be allowed to possess nuclear enrichment capacity, following reports that the administration had proposed a 20-year pause in enrichment — rather than a permanent end to Iran’s enrichment capacity — as part of peace talks in Islamabad over the weekend.

Last year, during diplomatic talks with the regime prior to the U.S. strikes on the Iranian nuclear program, all but one Senate Republican signed a letter arguing that Iran should never have enrichment capacity, a position echoed by a vast majority of House Republicans. The New York Times reported Monday that Iran agreed to halt enrichment for just five years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been a vocal proponent of the war in Iran but has also defended the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts, said on X that a 20-year pause to Iranian enrichment would not be sufficient.

“If this reporting is accurate, the idea that we would agree to a moratorium on enrichment rather than a ban on enrichment would be a mistake in my view,” Graham said on X. “Would we agree to a moratorium for al Qaeda to enrich? No. The only difference between al Qaeda and the Iranian regime is that one is a Sunni terrorist organization and the other is a Shia terrorist state.”

He said that Iran cannot be trusted and that the U.S. must hold firm to a standard of zero enrichment.

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), a co-lead of the letter last year, told Jewish Insider that he hadn’t seen the reports about the administration’s negotiating position and declined to comment on it specifically, but said more broadly that he does not believe that Iran has any legitimate need for enrichment.

“There’s no civilian reason for Iran to have an enrichment program,” Ricketts said. “They’re getting their uranium right now for their civilian program from Russia, and the fact that they have admitted they’ve enriched uranium to near bomb-grade potential demonstrates that this is for nuclear weapon production, not civilian use.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that Iran can’t be trusted to “stick with anything they agree to, so you have to understand that going into it.”

“But I agree with the president: no enrichment, no nuclear weapons and open up the Strait of Hormuz.”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) said that “the preference is no enrichment.”

“Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Bottom line, end of story,” Budd said. “The 20-year pause — is that a strategic component to a greater negotiation? I can understand that. … Do they have civilian nuclear power as part of that? Can they be trusted with this current regime? I don’t think so. But again, I’m going to give a lot of leeway to the administration who wants to end nuclear capability for Iran.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) also said he has not seen the reports, but that “it should be a forever” prohibition on Iranian nuclear enrichment.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that Republicans are set to discuss on Tuesday the best way to approve a supplemental funding request for the war and the proper size of the supplemental package.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) told reporters that he thinks the Iran war funding should be folded into the upcoming reconciliation package — focused on immigration and border security matters — while others maintain it should be a stand-alone bill. Including the Iran funding could make passing the reconciliation package in the House more difficult.

Wicker said, “it’s a matter of vote-counting, largely.”

There are also some apparent disagreements between Republicans about what should happen if the war extends past the 60-day timeline for unilateral executive military action laid out in the War Powers Act.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that the War Powers Act deadline may be unconstitutional or unenforceable, but said “there’s nobody walking around here in the Senate going, ‘How many days do we have left?’ Nobody’s paying attention.”

But Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told reporters, “I’m sure we’ll have some sort of a vote or a statement at that [60-day] point.” 

Other Republican senators are taking a firmer stance, rejecting any war operations beyond 60 days without congressional approval.

“Here in America, constitutional limits are in place to temper the president from unilateral authority. I support the president’s actions taken in defense of American lives and interests,” Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) said in a recent op-ed. “However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval.”

And Curtis said he would not support any supplemental funding for the war without congressional authorization.