President Donald Trump said in remarks at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Friday that the U.S. is continuing to negotiate with Tehran even amid U.S. strikes on Iran, but added that he didn’t think that Iranian leaders were ready to make a deal.

“They are talking to us right now. They’d love to make a deal. I don’t think they’re ready to. I don’t think it’s time yet, but I’m willing to listen,” Trump said at the dinner, held at Washington’s Waldorf Astoria after being rescheduled following a shootout at the annual April dinner between a lone gunman and Secret Service agents at the Washington Hilton.

Trump added that if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, the country “would use it,” potentially targeting the U.S., Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East.

ASPEN, Colo. — Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Ayman Safadi repeatedly emphasized on Wednesday that any deal with Iran should be comprehensive and ensure an end to Iran’s support for proxy groups and confront its efforts to destabilize the region.

The position suggests concern in the Arab world that a U.S. deal with Iran would not cover the regime’s long-running regional provocations — a concern Arab partners similarly raised about former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. 

“All of us in the region have always wanted good relations with Iran, but we said in order for those good relations to be had, Iran’s interventionism in the region, its meddling in the affairs of the area, non-respect for sovereignty of states must end,” Safadi, who also serves as Jordan’s foreign minister, said at the Aspen Security Forum. “Let’s put all those issues on the table and hopefully come up with a deal that will address all sorts of tension and allow for the region to enjoy the peace and stability that we deserve.”

Safadi emphasized that both Iran’s nuclear program and reopening the Strait of Hormuz are important, but that a deal also must address “other aspects that cause tension in the region,” including Iran’s proxies and regional aggression, and must be “comprehensive enough to make sure that we don’t find ourselves in the same place that we have been for years.”

Safadi also criticized Iran for closing the Strait of Hormuz and for retaliating against Jordan and Gulf states for U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.

He accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of lying about the situation along the border between Jordan and Israel — asserting that Jordan, rather than Israel, is carrying the brunt of securing that border, and that much of the smuggling is coming from Israel into Jordan rather than the other way around. 

He also blamed Israel for “manufactur[ing] unreal threats” in order to perpetuate an unproductive “strategy of perpetual conflict.”

Safadi criticized Israeli policy and activities in the West Bank, which he said are “undermining our objective of achieving a just and lasting peace” for both Israelis and Palestinians, and amount to a policy of annexation and encroachment on Muslim and Christian holy sites.

He also urged Israel against undermining a two-state solution without presenting a viable alternative.

“If you undermine the two-state solution, then where do you go from here? What are you going to do with 5 million Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank?” Safadi said. “The two-state solution is the only path to that just and lasting future. The Israeli government has completely refused that. What we say is, ‘Okay, … what do you want? Put that plan on the table. … Tell us what is your alternative to that.’ And you hear nothing.”

Safadi further warned that a flare-up in violence in the West Bank would undermine efforts to restore peace in Gaza. He said that spreading hate or antagonism on either side is unproductive and, at some point, “you can’t walk back if you cross a certain threshold.”

In Gaza, he called for the implementation of the U.S.-backed 20 point peace plan and lamented the delays on numerous fronts, also accusing Israel of blocking aid from Jordan from flowing into Gaza.

Safadi also called for an end to “power politics” in Lebanon — referring to the continued IDF presence — while expressing support for a long-term strategy to ensure Lebanese sovereignty and monopoly on arms. He argued that a military option alone for disarming Hezbollah is not viable, and that there is no short-term answer for restoring full Lebanese government control.

“I don’t believe that the military option should be on the table because it will only lead to the destruction of the country,” Safadi said, calling instead for a comprehensive social, economic and political strategy. “We have to have a comprehensive strategy that must be realistic, that must take into account what can and cannot be done, that must factor in what is the price of one option over the other, and obviously none of us want Lebanon to go into civil war.”

Vice President JD Vance said this week that U.S. military officials are working directly with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The vice president made the comments after departing Switzerland following the conclusion of talks with Iran that lasted until Monday.

“One of the things we wanted to come out [of the negotiations]” was a “channel on the Iranian side” to seek conflict resolution, Vance told the outlet UnHerd aboard Air Force Two. “Which we did. They were like, ‘OK, fine, we’ll send somebody from the IRGC to go hang out in Doha with somebody from CENTCOM,’ and that’s how we’re going to settle a lot of these disputes,” he said.

President Donald Trump designated the IRGC an FTO during his first term in 2019 and ordered the strike that killed IRGC Quds Force head Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Announcing the designation, the State Department said the group “has been directly involved in terrorist plotting; its support for terrorism is foundational and institutional, and it has killed U.S. citizens.” The IRGC also “continues to provide financial and other material support” for terror groups including Hezbollah, Kataib Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the statement added. 

The group played a central role in Iran’s attacks around the region during the U.S.-Iran war, including an attack on the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain earlier this month, and is linked to dozens of recent plots and attacks in Europe. U.S. authorities have also repeatedly alleged IRGC involvement in assassination schemes targeting current and former American officials, including Trump.

Vance said that the Emiratis — “by far the most hawkish, by far the most pro-Israel country in the [Gulf Cooperation Council]” — are also “having conversations with the Iranians that have never happened before, including with the IRGC,” namely about economic incentives to urge Iran to cooperate.

Regarding criticism of the memorandum of understanding reached with Iran, Vance said, “There are many things I don’t like about the comparison to the [2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action], but one of them is that the MOU is a much more generic document than the JCPOA.”

“It really is a foundational document,” he said of the MOU. “Let’s open the strait, let’s stop shooting at each other, and let’s see if we can make a nuclear deal. And from their perspective, it’s, ‘Let’s lift the blockade, let’s stop shooting at each other, and let’s see if there’s a sanctions deal.’ That’s fundamentally where it’s coming from.”

Vance claimed the Iranians are now offering “things radically different from the JCPOA” and “want a fundamentally transformed relationship with the United States and the world.”

With scant details provided by the Trump administration about the contours of the peace deal with Iran, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said on Monday afternoon that he doesn’t yet know enough about the administration’s deal with Iran to determine whether it is a good deal that will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“I don’t know enough about it to say,” Thune told reporters. “I think the issues are going to be compliance, and how you can enforce that, and what are the financial incentives that the Iranians have from our country, and what are they conditioned upon.”

The South Dakota Republican said that a positive deal would include financial incentives that are conditioned upon Iran winding down its nuclear program, the disposal of Iran’s enriched uranium and Tehran giving up its capacity to have a nuclear program in the future.

Thune also indicated that he believes the deal should be submitted to Congress for review under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

“There are some requirements that are triggered because of the nuclear components of the deal, in terms of notification or informing Congress,” Thune said. “I know there is probably some expectation that there may be a vote at some point, whether that’s on a resolution of disapproval or something. We’ll see. I just don’t know enough about it yet. And I don’t think even the people who follow this stuff closely up here know that much.”

The administration hasn’t publicly commented on the issue of INARA yet, and has offered varying timelines for when it might release the text of the agreement. In media appearances, Vice President JD Vance has been framing specific nuclear issues as part of the next round of talks, rather than the current MOU, which could give the administration an avenue to attempt to dodge INARA review.

Thune said that “somebody” from the administration, whether that be Vance or other officials, “will need to” come to the Hill to brief members.

“For sure, our members are going to have a lot of questions about it,” Thune said.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the No. 2 Senate Republican, indicated he was similarly in the dark about the agreement.

“I haven’t seen anything from the president in terms of what’s in it. I’ve seen some press reports,” Barrasso told reporters. “I want to see what’s actually in it and I congratulate the president for his continued efforts.”

But asked whether he was concerned that the deal would be an effective surrender to Iran in providing sanctions relief, Barrasso rejected the idea out of hand.

“President Trump is never, ever going to do what you just suggested,” Barrasso said. “He’s not going to accept a deal that doesn’t eliminate nuclear weapons, isn’t enforceable, isn’t verifiable and doesn’t take Iran completely out of what they’ve been doing to try to undermine and attack us for the last 47 years.”

As details begin to emerge about the Trump administration’s agreement with Iran to end the war and lift the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, some mainstream Jewish organizations are treating the deal as a preliminary step — focusing on the 60-day negotiating period ahead, while others are expressing skepticism about the contours of the agreement.

AIPAC, in a statement that came late Monday afternoon after many other organizations had already spoken out, framed the current MOU as a preliminary step, focusing more on the upcoming negotiations, while emphasizing the need for more details about how the current deal affects Israel.

“The announced MOU kicks off a new 60-day window for talks. We look forward to learning the full details of the framework for these negotiations, including whether the deal preserves the sovereign right of our democratic ally Israel to respond to the security threats it confronts,” AIPAC said in a statement.

The group also emphasized that “Congress will play a critical role in working with the administration throughout these negotiations and in reviewing the ultimate agreement.” 

It said any deal should require the removal of all enriched uranium from Iran, the dismantling of its enrichment capacity and should address Iran’s missile and drone programs and end its support for terrorist proxies.

The American Jewish Committee also did not take a definitive position on the current agreement, saying on X that the organization “await[s] developments about the reported 60-day ceasefire agreement” but emphasized the need to continue to focus on Iran’s long-running threats.

The AJC said that any ultimate deal with Iran at the conclusion of the upcoming 60-day negotiating period should ensure Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, rebuild its ballistic missile program, continue to support terror proxies, threaten U.S. allies and partners or hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage.

“AJC also strongly supports the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people for greater freedom, opportunity and dignity, and hopes that those aspirations are eventually realized,” the statement continued. “As the contours of this and future agreements become more clear, we will continue to engage with our partners in the U.S., the Middle East, and around the world to make this vision a reality.”

Other groups offered a more directly negative reaction to the emerging details of the MOU.

The Zionist Organization of America, which has been strongly supportive of Trump administration policies and President Donald Trump himself, praised the president for carrying out military operations against Iran but said that “the pending deal with Iran is concerning.”

“The deal appears to be an ‘agreement to negotiate’ — which enables the Iranian regime to obtain massive oil revenue and time to build up its military and terror arsenals, while leaving the genocidal Iranian regime and its nuclear and missile stockpiles in place, and positioning the Iranian regime to continue and strengthen its 47-year war to destroy the U.S., Israel, and the West,” ZOA National President Mort Klein said. “[T]he little that we know is deeply problematic.”

Klein said it “makes no sense” for the U.S. to let up on its blockade of Iran unless Iran fully gives up its nuclear program and missile stockpile. He also expressed concerns that the deal will allow Hezbollah to regroup and rearm, and that Trump demanded that Israel stand down against Hezbollah.

“Pressuring Israel to not respond to threats of annihilation and attacks on her people is not, as the president called it, a ‘Great Deal [that] will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region,’” Klein said.

“Disturbingly, the interim Iran deal does not appear to be even close to the U.S.-Israel war goals of eliminating the existential dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles, ending the Iranian regime’s support for its terror proxies, and helping the Iranian people overturn the brutal, genocidal Iranian regime,” he continued.

Democratic groups are also skeptical.

Democratic Majority for Israel CEO Brian Romick criticized the administration’s “incoherent and erratic strategy” and said that “there are concerning details about what is and isn’t in this deal.” Romick called on the administration to lean on “experienced negotiators and technical experts” in the next phases of talks, “rather than relying on friends, family, and donors.”

He said that any deal must permanently end Iran’s nuclear program, constrain its ballistic missiles, address Iran’s support for terrorism and ensure that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s terrorist proxies do not receive additional support as a result of sanctions relief or the unfreezing of assets, and that it must be thoroughly vetted by Congress.

“Despite this tentative deal, the reality is Israel still faces constant threats from Iranian-backed terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. President Trump must not limit or interfere with our ally’s ability to defend itself from very real threats along its border,” Romick continued.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America’s CEO Halie Soifer took an even more strident tone.

“Donald Trump’s deal with Iran isn’t a deal at all. At best, it’s a statement of intention — a ‘concept of a plan’ — lacking details. At worst, it’s an admission of defeat by the United States,” Soifer said, describing it as a weaker deal than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

She argued that the “reckless war” gave Iran a “chokehold” on the U.S. and global economy that it will continue to exercise in the future, gave Iran a stronger hand in nuclear negotiations, solidified the current regime, harmed the Iranian people and gained the U.S. nothing.

“Today, Iran is unquestionably further from regime change — and this Iranian regime is stronger — than before the war,” Soifer said. “Trump repeatedly berated the Obama administration for offering sanctions relief and unfreezing Iranian assets as part of the JCPOA. The amount of financial benefit Iran received from the JCPOA will be dwarfed by the amount of money going to Iran following Trump’s defeat.”

Soifer also criticized Trump for sidelining and ignoring Israel throughout the talks.

J Street has thus far been an outlier in expressing support for the deal.

The group’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, said J Street “welcomes” the announcement, while also criticizing the war effort as a whole.

“The lesson is the same one many experts and former security officials have warned about for years: There is no sustainable military solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear diplomacy,” Ben-Ami said. “Durable constraints on Iran’s nuclear activities can only be achieved through pragmatic and sustained diplomacy.”

Ben-Ami argued that the deal would be largely similar to the JCPOA, adding, “We urge lawmakers to support this agreement to end the fighting and push to ensure future diplomatic efforts address the security threats presented by Iran.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition has not issued a full statement of its own on the deal, but has indicated support thus far, sharing on its X account two Truth Social posts from Trump about the Strait of Hormuz being reopened and the lifting of the U.S. blockade. RJC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A year and a day after Israeli fighter jets first opened fire above Iran, setting off a year of intermittent fighting and numerous failed negotiations, President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that an agreement with Iran to end the war had been reached. A signing ceremony set for later this week in Switzerland — which is expected to be attended by Vice President JD Vance — will kick off a 60-negotiation period to address Iran’s nuclear program and U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

For Americans, the deal closes a chapter that saw high gas and food prices as well as schisms in the GOP as the party’s wings fought over how the war should be fought and ended. Among Democrats, legislators and activists from the party’s progressive wing — from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) to the National Iranian American Council’s Trita Parsi (who additionally gloated, “Netanyahu failed!”) — praised the deal.

But Israel was not part of the negotiations, nor did it have final say in what was in the agreement inked between Washington and Tehran. As the Is were dotted and Ts were crossed on the agreement, tensions between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — already on display following Israel’s threatened escalation last week in Beirut, followed by an actual escalation on Sunday when Israel struck Beirut’s Dahiyeh neighborhood — deepened. In a call on Sunday after Israel conducted the strike — later claiming to have killed a senior Hezbollah commander — Trump told Axios he had conveyed to Netanyahu that he “was so pissed off.” Netanyahu, Trump said, “has no f***ing judgement. I let him know that.”

In Israel, the deal is being met with dismay across the board, as neither of the war goals laid out by Netanyahu last June — removing Iran’s “existential threats” to Israel and ending Tehran’s support for its terror proxies across the region — have been met, even after a year of fighting.

With elections in the country fast approaching, Netanyahu, who has long billed himself as “Mr. Security,” is already finding himself on the receiving end of criticism from across the political spectrum. Former Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman blasted the deal as “catastrophe from Israel’s perspective,” while prominent right-wing Israeli journalist Amit Segal posted an ominous quote from former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

The question now is what, exactly, is in the agreement. Iran’s state-linked Mehr agency reported that under the terms of the agreement, the U.S. will release $12 billion in frozen assets to Iran before talks begin.

Fox News reported that the $12 billion figure, as well as other reports of the deal’s stipulations, are incorrect, and that officials within the Trump administration are growing frustrated over rumors about the contours of the agreement.

Calls for the deal’s text to be made public have come from even Trump’s staunchest supporters. Commentator Mark Levin said he has “asked for days, why can’t we, the people, see the damn MOU?” Levin added that he had “never seen anything like this. If it is a great outcome for peace, then release it.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on X on Sunday that he was “somewhat concerned” that Iran’s account of the U.S.-Iran ceasefire deal diverges sharply from what the U.S. negotiators are claiming, and demanded Vice President JD Vance personally present the deal to Congress. 

The vice president, who two months ago traveled to Pakistan for high-level negotiations with Iranian officials, has increasingly become the public face of the Iran talks. In an interview last week that aired yesterday on “CBS Sunday Morning,” Vance said he believed “that we are in a position to get a deal that is good for the United States economically and that really does deal with the Iranian nuclear program” in the long term.

For Vance, the success or failure of the deal, and of the negotiations to follow, could become one of the defining political issues of his rumored 2028 presidential bid — one in which he will likely find himself up against Secretary of State Marco Rubio in what could be a bruising primary.

With the deal’s signing later this week, the military phase of the war — begun just over a year ago — will conclude. But what comes next is the political phase, which will determine Iran’s nuclear future, Israeli security policy and the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the region for decades to come. 

The U.S. is nearing a deal with Iran to end the war, President Donald Trump announced on Saturday, though the precise parameters of the agreement remained unclear.

After holding a call with officials from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, Bahrain and Egypt, as well as a separate discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said on Truth Social on Saturday afternoon that an agreement has “been largely negotiated” with “final aspects and details … currently being discussed.” 

“In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened,” the president said.

While Trump did not offer any further details, Iranian officials had told The New York Times that a memorandum of understanding under discussion with the U.S. would end fighting on all fronts, including between Israel and Lebanon; lift the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and allow for free movement of commercial traffic without any tolls; leave nuclear issues to be negotiated within 30 to 60 days; and see the release of $25 billion in frozen Iranian funds. 

U.S. officials told the Times that, under the current agreement, Tehran has committed to giving up its stockpile of already enriched uranium, an issue that Trump has frequently stated is a U.S. priority, but the specifics as to how that transfer will occur are set to be worked out in subsequent negotiations.

A senior Iranian official denied to Reuters on Sunday that Iran’s nuclear program was a part of the initial agreement, and said that Tehran had not agreed to hand over its enriched uranium. “The ​nuclear issue will ​be addressed in negotiations for ‌a ⁠final agreement and are therefore not part of the ​current deal,” the official told Reuters.

A U.S. official told Axios’ Barak Ravid that the agreement involves a 60-day ceasefire extension during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened and Iran would be able to sell oil freely. The draft MOU, according to Axios, includes commitments from Iran that it will never pursue nuclear weapons and to negotiate a suspension of its uranium enrichment program and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The draft also includes an end to the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Netanyahu said in a statement on Sunday regarding his conversation with Trump the day prior that the two leaders “agreed that any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger,” including dismantling Tehran’s nuclear program and removing enriched uranium from the country. Trump also “reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself against threats on every front, including Lebanon,” Netanyahu said.

Some hawkish Senate Republicans expressed outrage on Saturday over the reported terms of the deal, calling it a defeat for the United States filled with major concessions to the Iranian regime.

President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to escalate the war in Iran on Monday if Iranian leaders do not agree to a broad ceasefire deal that includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz by his Tuesday evening deadline, threatening that the U.S. would target every bridge and power plant still standing in the country.

Trump took a hawkish posture while speaking to reporters at the White House alongside senior U.S. defense officials about the ongoing war and diplomatic efforts to bring it to a close, warning that the U.S. has a plan to take out Iran’s entire transportation and energy infrastructure within “four hours” if Iran did not make a deal. 

“I can tell you they’re negotiating, we think, in good faith. We’re going to find out. … After [8 p.m. ET on Tuesday], they’re going to have no bridges. They’re going to have no power plants. Stone ages,” Trump said, referring to the deadline he set for Iran to agree to his terms, which has now been postponed three times.

The president said he extended the deadline from Monday to Tuesday at 8 p.m. ET because he “thought it was inappropriate” to demand a response “the day after Easter.” The comment came hours after telling reporters at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll that the Tuesday deadline was final and unlikely to have any additional extensions. 

“The entire country can be taken out in one night and that night might be tomorrow night,” Trump said from the briefing room. “We have a plan, because of the power of our military, [where] every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again. I mean complete demolition by 12 o’clock, and it’ll happen over a period of four hours if we want it to.” 

“We don’t want that to happen. We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation. If that’s the case, the last thing we want to do is start with power plants, which are among the most expensive things, and bridges,” he continued. “So do I want to do that? No. Do I want to destroy their infrastructure? No. It will take them 100 years to rebuild. Right now, if we left today, it would take them 20 years to rebuild their country and it would never be as good as it was. The only way they’re going to be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who took part in the press conference alongside Trump, told reporters on Monday that, “per the president’s direction, today will be the largest volume which strikes since day one of this operation. Tomorrow, even more than today, and then Iran has a choice. Choose wisely, because this president does not play around.”

Trump repeatedly reiterated his commitment to ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon — after saying the country’s nuclear program was “obliterated” last June — and said that any agreement between Iran and the U.S. would need to adhere to his terms, including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. “We have to have a deal that’s acceptable to me, and part of that deal is going to be [that] we want free traffic of oil and everything,” the president said.

“They’re not going to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said of Iran, arguing that his actions were an insurance policy for the U.S. “if somebody that takes my place someday is weak and ineffective, which possibly that will happen, because we had numerous presidents that were weak, ineffective and afraid of Iran.”

The president described the Iranians as “very good bulls*** artists, that’s why for 47 years they’ve been bulls***ing other presidents,” while defending his decision to take military action against the regime.

“I think that 47 years of this stuff is long enough. They’re at the weakest point they’ve ever been,” Trump said, despite Iran’s continued missile strikes across the Gulf and in Israel. “In fact, the biggest problem we have in our negotiations is that they can’t communicate. … They have no method of communication. So we’re communicating like they used to communicate 2,000 years ago with children bringing a note back and forth.”

Tensions escalated between Washington and Jerusalem this week over Israel’s handling of Syria and negotiations for a possible agreement to renew the 1974 ceasefire between the two neighboring countries, with adjustments.

Speaking at The Jerusalem Post conference in Washington on Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, who also serves as the Trump administration’s Syria envoy, said the time is ripe for Israel and Syria to reach an agreement: “It’s the easiest place to show the world a soft hand and bridge grievances.”

In Barrack’s telling, an agreement between Syria and Israel will only be possible with an immediate, complete Israeli withdrawal from the buffer zone between the countries. The IDF has held the 155-square-mile area since the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad a year ago, and Israel has sought to withdraw incrementally and remain at the peak of Mount Hermon.

Instead, Barrack said, “Let’s not fight over geography. What we’re concerned about is we’re not going to let Oct. 7 happen ever again,” so the focus should be on demilitarizing the area south of Damascus. “Syria knows its future depends on a security and border agreement with Israel. Their incentive is non-aggressive toward Israel,” Barrack said. However, he added, “After Oct. 7, Israel doesn’t trust anybody. … The Syrians have been unbelievably cooperative.” 

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, however, was skeptical in his remarks at the same event: “The gaps between us and Syria have widened. They have new demands. Of course, we want an agreement, but we are further from one now than we were a few weeks ago.”

Since Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa toppled and replaced Assad, Israel has been extremely skeptical about the former leader of Syria’s branch of Al-Qaida, whom Sa’ar and others have branded a “terrorist in a suit.” The concerns have not dissipated over the course of the last year, even as President Donald Trump embraced al-Sharaa as a “young, attractive guy” with a “tough past” and dropped sanctions, Europe moved towards lifting sanctions, as well, and Abraham Accords countries have accepted him.

“The train has left the station; the whole world accepts al-Sharaa as the legitimate leader of Syria and is ignoring his jihadi background as well as that of the people heading his military – but we can’t ignore it,” Sarit Zehavi, founder and president of the Alma Research and Education Center, which focuses on Israel’s north, told JI.

In late November, during an IDF raid on the town of Beit Jinn to arrest two Syrian terrorists, a firefight broke out, leaving 13 Syrians dead and six IDF soldiers injured.

In a celebration of a year since Assad’s fall, the Syrian Army paraded through the streets of Damascus, chanting “Gaza, Gaza, our rallying cry … From your blood I forge my ammunition.” Israel’s bellicose Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli shared the video with the message: “War is inevitable.”  

Zehavi quipped about the celebrations: “I’m not sleeping any better at night. The message is ‘we will save Syria from the Zionist occupation.’ A regime that wants peace doesn’t do these things, nor does a regime that is disconnecting itself from Islamism.” 

Beyond the concerns about al-Sharaa’s jihadi past seeping into the present, Jerusalem is skeptical about the longevity of his regime and the stability of Syria as one, cohesive political entity. 

Shira Efron, distinguished Israel policy chair and senior fellow at RAND, told JI that “the hilltops Israel is holding now in Syria, especially the Hermon, are really strategic, security-wise, and it doesn’t make sense to withdraw when you have a neighbor who is still unstable.” 

Israel is also concerned about the Druze minority in Syria, which has close ties to Israeli Druze, who are an important political constituency and hold prominent positions in the Israeli security establishment. Israel has pledged to protect the Druze in Syria, and the IDF has acted to that end.

“The greater mindset in Israel post-Oct. 7 is that we messed up so badly reading the intentions of an adversary that we are not taking any chances,” Efron said. “We are preemptively taking out their capabilities because we cannot trust their intentions, let alone when we are talking about a controversial figure with a very complicated past – and that’s the understatement of the century.”

While Efron acknowledged that “Israel has valid concerns,” she warned that time is not on its side. She said that Israel may have missed an opportunity to use the leverage it had to reach better terms earlier this year, when al-Sharaa was more eager to reach an agreement, the West had not fully embraced him and Trump was not cracking jokes with him in the Oval Office. 

Now, Zehavi said, “Israel thought it would be able to withdraw [from southern Syria] and stay in Hermon, widen the buffer zone and al-Sharaa doesn’t want either.”

That being said, Efron posited that Israel has room to maneuver within what appear to be the current parameters of the talks, including asking for American guarantees, negotiating timelines for withdrawal with stages conditioned on Damascus keeping its commitments to demilitarize southern Syria and demanding protections for the Druze.

Zehavi, however, said any agreement would be “with someone Israel can’t trust. It can only be based on guarantees. The worst-case scenario would be if, in the end, Syria is an Islamist state with Western support. That is what needs to be prevented.”

More broadly, Efron said, “it doesn’t make sense to get into battles with the Americans” or for Israel to “act like it’s being dragged kicking and screaming into agreements, like we forgot how to use the diplomacy muscle.” She was optimistic that an agreement could “pave the way to water cooperation and maybe further cooperation.”

It’s a “morning of historic and momentous news,” as Israeli President Isaac Herzog put it on Thursday, when Israelis woke up to learn that a deal had been reached to free the remaining hostages in the coming days and halt the fighting in Gaza.

The sides are expected to officially sign the deal in Egypt today, and Israel’s Cabinet is set to vote at 11 a.m. ET on the exchange of the 48 hostages, 20 of whom are thought to be alive, for close to 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. The IDF said it began preparing to withdraw from parts of Gaza as part of the deal.

Hamas is expected to release the Israeli hostages first. Only when Israel is satisfied that the terrorist group has freed everyone it can find — including the remains of about 28 Israelis who were killed — will Palestinian prisoners be released. The swap comes with caveats: Hamas says it is unable to locate some of the bodies, and about 250 of the Palestinian prisoners set to be released are serving life sentences for terrorist offenses, though Israel insisted that high-profile detainees — such as Second Intifada mastermind Marwan Barghouti — will not be part of the deal. 

The deal is expected to pass easily in the Cabinet, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party holding the majority of the seats. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who expressed opposition earlier this week to President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war, was unusually quiet on Thursday morning, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said he would not vote in favor.

Trump said in an interview with Fox News that all of the hostages “will be coming back on Monday. … As we speak, so much is happening to get the hostages freed.” 

Israeli media reports have said that Hamas could begin freeing hostages as early as Saturday, without the mass propaganda events that marred previous hostage releases.

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter made clear that only the first phase of the deal had been agreed on, and the end of the war can only come after it is implemented.

“We hope it leads to a complete cessation of hostilities and a rebuilding of Gaza for the sake of the Gazans and for the sake of Israel, but it’s the first stage, and we’ve got to see the first stage implemented completely,” Leiter told CNN. 

Trump is expected to fly to Israel over the weekend to celebrate the release of the hostages and address the Knesset, following an invitation from Netanyahu. The Hostages Families Forum invited Trump to meet with families and give an address in Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square during his trip. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s former Middle East advisor, Jared Kushner, are expected to arrive in Israel later Thursday.

“We can finally breathe again, embrace those we feared we would never hold, and bring to dignified burial those we have lost. … We simply need the opportunity to look you in the eye and express what words alone cannot fully convey: that you gave us back our families, and with them, our hope,” the hostage families’ group wrote to Trump.

A delegation of released hostages and hostages’ relatives were in Washington, meeting with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, when the deal was announced. With the president on Lutnick’s speakerphone, members of the group thanked the president for his efforts. 

The Tikvah Forum, made up of more hawkish hostage families, said that the news “gives us hope. We are full of hope that … we will merit to embrace our loved ones soon. Thank you to everyone who acted to bring them all back, especially our brave soldiers.” 

Opposition leader Yair Lapid called for Trump to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, echoing a recent call from hostage families who nominated the president for the award.

Earlier in the week, senior figures from several of the countries involved in the talks headed to Egyptian resort town Sharm el-Sheikh to close the deal, including Witkoff, Kushner, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani and Turkish Intelligence Minister Ibrahim Kalin.

Negotiators hammered out the details of the first phase of Trump’s 20-step deal — the hostage release — along with Israel’s initial lines of withdrawal. According to the plan Trump announced last month, Israel would only withdraw from Gaza City in the first stage, but subsequent Israeli media reports indicate that Jerusalem agreed to a withdrawal from parts of Khan Younis, as well.

The talks in Egypt began after Hamas stated last week that it was willing to exchange the hostages for Palestinian prisoners. The terrorist group rejected other components of the Trump plan, such as laying down its arms and the demilitarization and deradicalization of Gaza, yet Trump said he views Hamas as “ready for a lasting peace.”

Netanyahu said in a subsequent statement that this was a new concession from Hamas in that they agreed to free the hostages “while the IDF remains deep within the [Gaza] Strip.” The Trump plan would also have the IDF remain in a buffer zone along Gaza’s perimeter, including the Philadelphi Corridor between Gaza and Egypt.

Other issues under negotiation include who will be part of the temporary technocratic administration governing Gaza and the “Peace Board” led by Trump, with former British prime minister Tony Blair taking part, as well as, potentially, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan.

Senators reacted with cautious optimism — and a degree of skepticism — to President Donald Trump’s announcement on Monday of a sweeping deal that would end the war in Gaza, see the release of the remaining hostages and facilitate reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned that the execution of the deal would require close monitoring of Hamas’ compliance and that long-term peace in the region will likely require eliminating Iran’s other proxies, in addition to Hamas.

“I hope Hamas agrees — we’ll get the hostages home. Distrust and verify with these guys,” Graham said. “A lot of loopholes if you don’t watch it, but I hope we can land this deal.”

“When you talk about normalizing the Mideast, I’m all for that. But after Oct. 7, we have to learn one thing: As long as radical Islamic terrorist groups exist, you can’t have a normal Mideast,” Graham continued. “I hope we can land this deal and bring the hostages home and start a new chapter in Gaza and the West Bank, but I will never support normalization until Hezbollah is dealt with. You cannot say the Mideast is a normal place as long as Hezbollah is a threat the way it is today.”

He said that he’s concerned that Hezbollah would replicate Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack if Israel and Saudi Arabia again begin to move toward normalization again before the Lebanese terror group is eliminated.

“If we do the Hamas deal, we should insist that the region deal with Hezbollah and take them both down, then eventually the Houthis,” he continued. “My takeaway of Oct. 7 is if you don’t have these radical groups in a box, you can never really achieve peace.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that there are “some details to be filled in, but I think by and large this seems like a very encouraging development.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was hesitant to offer an assessment of the deal before Hamas had agreed to the terms.

“It’s the deal that hasn’t happened yet. It’d be nice. I mean, I guess it would be great if we get the hostages back and we get a ceasefire and we get to rebuild Gaza. That all sounds really good. I’m glad that Trump cares about this. It seems optimistic,” he told JI. 

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) expressed some hesitation about engaging with the Qataris and taking a deal, but suggested Trump was ready to bring the conflict to a close. 

“It’s bold. It’s gutsy on the president’s part. I just will believe it when I see it. I’m just so skeptical of one side in this, getting Qatar in there and involved,” Cramer told JI. “Clearly we’re playing along a little. I don’t know. I just don’t know. I think the timing for Trump is sort of like, ‘Okay, now’s the time [for a ceasefire]. We’ve done the dance long enough.’”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) said he’s reviewing the plan, adding that the elimination of Hamas is a necessity.

“You can’t have Hamas promising the destruction of Israel,” he continued. “As long as there’s no threat, I see an opportunity here, but you can’t make a deal with somebody that wants to exterminate you.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Jim Risch (R-ID) praised the plan on X. “President Trump again shows his commitment to peace with his plan to bring all the hostages home, end the war in Gaza and transition to a future that allows the Palestinian people to prosper without Hamas’ terror schemes,” Risch said. “Anyone who wants a better future for the Palestinian people should join this pursuit of peace.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider he’s “glad they look like they’re moving toward peace.”

“I don’t think Israel is worried any longer about being popular. I think Israel was worried about its survival, and I respect that. And they’re going to do whatever it takes,” Kennedy continued. “Now, will Hamas accept it? I don’t know. I really don’t know. I hope they do. But if they don’t, I think Israel needs to continue to do what it’s been doing and wipe Hamas off the face of the earth.”

Democrats expressed hope that the deal would bring the war to a close.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told JI, “I’m encouraged the president’s engaging directly and saying this war must end. Humanitarian relief needs to go in, hostages need to come out, there needs to be a plan going forward for Gaza,” but said he hadn’t seen the details of Trump’s announcement.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that he was not familiar with the specifics of the plan. “If there’s a ceasefire and return of the hostages and humanitarian relief, bravo,” Blumenthal said.

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT), one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s Gaza operations in the Senate, told JI he hadn’t reviewed the plan but “my main concern [is to] start getting food and medicine in. That has to happen immediately.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “I call on Hamas to accept, and Israel to faithfully implement, the proposal laid out by the United States.”

Prior to the meeting, leading Senate Democrats had urged Trump to press Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a hostage deal that ends the war, as well as to pressure Netanyahu to rule out annexation of the West Bank.

Michael Schill, the Northwestern University president who announced his resignation last week amid widespread controversy over his tenure, appeared unfazed to hear that a Palestinian professor he hired as part of a deal with encampment protestors had once met with the late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, an interview with the House Committee on Education and Workforce, released on Thursday, reveals. 

In the Aug. 5 interview, which was released as a response to Schill’s resignation announcement on Thursday, House investigators pressed Schill on the hiring of Mkhaimar Abusada as a visiting associate professor of political science. 

Abusada, who Schill described as “someone who is regularly quoted as an authority on Palestine governance and politics,” published a piece in Haaretz last year about his 2018 meeting with Sinwar. 

“Hypothetically, if somebody, you know, 4 years, 5 years before Oct. 7 has met with someone who — and, I mean, I’m not sure — my guess is — I’ve never been to Gaza, but it’s a pretty small place, and that you are going to meet people and talk to people,” said Schill, who claimed to not be aware of that meeting when he hired Abusada but noted in the interview that the professor’s position had been extended to August 2026. “I don’t know whether a seasoned professor who is doing the politics of Gaza could avoid getting to know some of these people, or whether that would be not doing his job right.”

Schill, who will remain as president in an interim role until his successor is chosen, oversaw a period of antisemitic turmoil on the Chicago-area campus after the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks and was accused of failing to respond in an adequate manner, leading some lawmakers to call for his resignation. 

The 135-page interview transcript provides new, detailed information on Schill’s response to years of campus turbulence, including his controversial handling of a violent anti-Israel encampment in spring 2024 and the university’s close ties to Hamas-allied Qatar. 

The interview comes as Northwestern is in talks with the Trump administration to restore $790 million in funding for the university that was pulled by the federal government over an alleged failure to protect Jewish students.

Jewish alumni expressed optimism that Schill’s resignation, and the interview being made public, would lead to Northwestern leaders making necessary reforms. 

“Northwestern’s board needs to take control of the situation in a way they have declined to until now [and] clear out all other administrators who have been part of this culture of enabling antisemitism on campus,” Rich Goldberg, a senior advisor at Foundation for Defense of Democracies who holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Northwestern, told Jewish Insider. 

“Those who are negotiating on behalf of the Trump administration, now seeing this transcript, will need to review any additional information that’s come to light, additional questions that they might have for the university, see if this changes anything that’s been under negotiation to date, and with Schill stepping down, hopefully signaling the board of the university wanting to see real changes made,” Goldberg continued.

Michael Teplitsky, president of the Coalition Against Antisemitism At Northwestern, said that Abusada “should never have been at Northwestern.” 

“There must be a massive turnaround and restructuring at the university and they have to make meaningful changes,” said Teplitsky. 

When anti-Israel encampments emerged on college campuses across the country in spring 2024, Schill, who is Jewish, became the first university president to strike a deal with demonstrators. The deal included no disciplinary action taken against students and acceded to several demands of the protesters, which drew strong condemnation from many Jewish leaders. Among other concessions, Schill committed to hire two Palestinian professors, which would include Abusada, and offer full scholarships to five students from Gaza. 

Schill acknowledged in the interview that — despite telling Congress that “discipline has been meted out to many of those students” who participated in the encampment and other antisemitic incidents on campus — no students had actually faced disciplinary action for anti-Israel activity on campus. Schill said that the university had reason to believe some demonstrators could be armed and claimed that university leadership had no option but to negotiate with the encampment organizers because they were dangerous. The university was afraid to send in the police to remove them, he said. 

“We didn’t think our students were armed, but we didn’t know,” Schill told the House committee. “There was a suspicious tent off to the side, and we knew that our students were trying to avoid the people in that tent, and we didn’t know what was inside the tent. And so we were concerned about that.”

The released testimony also puts a spotlight on Northwestern Provost Kathleen Hagerty’s support for the encampment and BDS activism on campus, which Schill argued she may have viewed as a “teachable moment.”  

In a series of exposed text messages, Hagerty wrote that “if the students really cared about actual divestment, then they need the patience to do the work to actually make it happen.” 

In an April 27 text exchange with a professor, Hagerty wrote that for Northwestern to boycott Sabra, an Israeli hummus company that is sold at the university, it would “probably be pretty easy,” adding that she is “all for making a deal.” 

Schill responded to the text messages by highlighting his support for the Jewish state. “I view Israel as our number one strategic partner in the world,” he said. 

“I don’t think [Schill] is the only administrator that needs to go,” said Goldberg. “Clearly the provost needs to follow him out the door as someone who is also chiefly responsible for the culture of enabling antisemitism at the university and implementing the encampment appeasement.” 

The interview also raised new questions around Northwestern’s relationship with Qatar. Schill said that students on Northwestern’s Qatar campus are exempted from completing the university’s mandatory antisemitism training and acknowledged several examples of professors on the Qatar campus engaging in extreme pro-terrorism and antisemitic activism and speech on social media. 

He said that Northwestern’s contract with Qatar prevents it or its affiliates from criticizing the country. “NU, NU-Q, and their respective employees, students, faculty, families, contractors and agents, shall be subject to the applicable laws and regulations of the State of Qatar, and shall respect the cultural, religious and social customs of the State of Qatar,” said Schill. He said that Qatar has given Northwestern $737 million since 2008. 

“The initial deal to put a campus out in Qatar was put together, it was in the era after 9/11,” Teplitsky told JI. “I think people had hopes and ambitions to build bridges in the Middle East, in Qatar. It had wonderful intentions. I think now looking back and looking at it specifically through the lens of Northwestern University… looking at it from a perspective of … values that Northwestern lists on its website, that relationship has not been a good one. It’s been one of failure. 

Teplitsky continued, “Should Northwestern be registered, as long as they continue to have this campus, with the Department of Justice as a foreign agent? I believe that they should have to register as a foreign agent if they choose to continue to have this campus.” 

Jewish Insider Senior Congressional Correspondent Marc Rod contributed reporting. 

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Wednesday in remarks at the Hudson Institute that he’s skeptical that Iran would agree to a deal to dismantle its nuclear program.

Risch said that he is “not particularly optimistic” that a deal with Iran that stops it from enriching uranium can be reached, while adding that if Iran does not agree to a deal, “Israel is going to do something about that.”

“I’ve sat across the table from [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, I don’t know how many times, and he has looked me in the eye and said, ‘Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,’” the top Senate Republican said. “And you know what? I believe him, and I think that’s a case for the United States to be in the exact same position.”

He called Iran a “failing country right now,” and said that the U.S. should be continuing to ratchet up sanctions on Iran and those purchasing Iranian oil. If Iran were eliminated as a threat, he continued, that would also effectively eliminate the other major bad actors in the region, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, as Iran’s proxies.

“They’re all Iran. They’re all proxies of Iran. If Iran was gone, the three Hs would be gone,” Risch said. “So we’re down to one bad actor, really, in the region.”

Addressing the push for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Risch said that Israel needs to destroy Hamas completely, and that any deal that allows it to continue existing will only set up another war down the road. And he said that Arab states are privately hoping that Israel is successful in incapacitating Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood affiliates.

Risch described Syria and Lebanon as “keystones in a peaceful and prosperous Middle East,” both of which, he said, are poised for change and progress.

He expressed support for the administration’s decision to waive sanctions on Syria but warned that “we need to proceed with caution,” given Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s jihadist past.

“There are conditions that I believe must be met” by Syria and the administration should consider reimposing sanctions if they are not, he continued, including full cooperation against ISIS, eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stores, expelling Russian and Iranian influence from the country, dismantling the Assad regime’s drug empire and accounting for missing and detained Americans.

Risch said he was initially nervous about al-Sharaa when he took control of Syria, but said, in his defense, that al-Sharaa’s terrorist activity was “a long time ago,” that al-Sharaa had cut ties with terrorist groups “knowing full well what they were and what they stood for” and that the sorts of atrocities and violence that Western leaders have worried about occurring in post-Assad Syria largely have not.

He said he believes that al-Sharaa was not involved in the “one incident” — seemingly referring to a massacre targeting the Alawite religious minority — that has taken place since he took power.

“I think the guy needs to be given a chance, particularly when he is saying what he’s saying, doing what he’s doing,” Risch said. At the same time, the committee chair also acknowledged that Israel does not share his view of al-Sharaa.

Risch downplayed the recent U.S. military pullback from Syria, emphasizing that the U.S. remains committed to the fight against ISIS and is concentrating its remaining resources in the region where ISIS has the strongest presence.

Risch said he’s “skeptical of Turkey” as a “result of my dealings with [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan directly.” He warned that the Turkish antagonism toward the Kurds “could be a really, really serious problem” in Syria, which has “enough problems as it is,” and said he is “very cautious” about Turkey maintaining influence inside Syria.

He framed the new Lebanese government as that country’s “best opportunity” but emphasized that it has a long way to go to implement reforms, solve financial issues, eliminate corruption and root out Hezbollah. He said both the Lebanese president and Parliament speaker have “shown great potential over the years.”

“Any hesitancy to meet the threats posed by Hezbollah would be deeply troubling and force the United States to reevaluate providing much needed support for the [Lebanese] military,” Risch continued.

Pushing back on some in the Republican Party who have argued that the U.S. must pull back from the Middle East and other foreign engagements to focus resources on the Indo-Pacific and the home front, Risch said that he’s concerned about the U.S. national debt, but emphasized that fiscal responsibility does not require abandoning U.S. allies.

“We have relationships around the world that are just as important to us for our national security as [are] our military operations. We need friends,” Risch said. “There are a lot of people around the world that share our values and share our view of what life should be for human beings, and we need to maintain that.”

He added that the U.S. should “prize” its global reputation, and warned that abandoning allies like Ukraine would show weakness to China and other adversaries, and ultimately kick off a global nuclear arms race.