Michael Makovsky, the president and CEO of the hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security of America, criticized the Trump administration’s recent handling of the U.S. war in Iran, expressing concern about the possibility of a broader peace deal that does not address key issues.

“The U.S. has lost the plot on Iran,” Makovsky told Jewish Insider on Friday. “After significant military achievements, declaring the ceasefire was a huge mistake, and there was too much hype about what pressure a blockade alone would achieve. The net result has reduced U.S. leverage, and the perception that America is vulnerable if gasoline nears $5 per gallon.”

Makovsky said that the U.S. “should not pursue a deal” with Iran, arguing that such an agreement “wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on.” He said that a deal “will only enrich and strengthen the regime and demoralize the Iranian people.” 

“Instead, the U.S. should resume military operations for a couple weeks, weaken the regime and its nuclear and conventional capabilities further, cease the military campaign while maintaining the blockade and support the Iranian people in every way possible,” he said.

Makovsky spoke to JI in response after President Donald Trump’s announcement on Friday that he was nearing a decision on the agreement reportedly reached by U.S. and Iranian negotiators to extend the ongoing ceasefire by 60 days, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and continue nuclear talks. Makovsky made the comments prior to this weekend’s fighting between the two countries, with the U.S. striking Iranian air defenses and drone sites after Iran downed an American MQ-1 drone and shot missiles at U.S. forces based in Kuwait.

“Based on what appears to being negotiated, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened in return for certain Iranian pledges about what will be worked out in further negotiations,” Makovsky said. “There are even reports about a possible international investment fund in Iran, which would be preposterous with this regime.”

After holding a Situation Room meeting on Friday, Trump reportedly requested several amendments to the negotiated deal, including firmer commitments around Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, leading to another round of negotiations. Iranian state media reported on Monday that its delegation was suspending talks with the U.S. over Israel’s continued strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Hawkish Senate Republicans expressed outrage on Saturday over the reported terms of a U.S. ceasefire deal with Iran, calling the agreement a defeat for the U.S. filled with major concessions to the Iranian regime.

“I am deeply concerned about what we are hearing about an Iran ‘deal,’ being pushed by some voices in the administration,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on Saturday.

Cruz said that Trump’s decision to strike Iran was correct and “the most consequential decision of his second term, but said that ending the war on the reported terms would be a failure.

“If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime — still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ — now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz continued.

He said that he is “pray[ing] the early reports are wrong” but said the fact that former Biden administration Iran envoy Rob Malley praised the reports is “not encouraging.”

“President Trump believes in peace through strength, and his strong leadership has already made America much safer,” Cruz said. “He should continue to hold the line, defend America & enforce the red lines he has repeatedly drawn.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that ending the war along the proposed terms would be conceding that there is no military solution to defeating Iran. 

“If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution,” Graham said.

He said that such an outcome would shift the balance of power in the region and “be a nightmare for Israel.”

“Also, it makes one wonder why the war started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate. I personally am a skeptic of the idea that Iran cannot be denied the ability to terrorize the Strait and the region cannot protect itself against Iranian military capability,” Graham continued. “It is important we get this right.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, shared Graham’s post.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had urged Trump on Friday to ignore advisors urging an agreement with Iran, and encouraged the administration to return to war so as not to leave behind a legacy of weakness.

“The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster,” Wicker said Saturday. “Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!”

Meanwhile, other congressional Republicans are expressing support for the administration’s approach.

“President Trump is the ONLY one who could have gotten Iran — the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism — to the negotiating table,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said. “We are greatly encouraged to learn a PEACE DEAL in Iran is underway — and look forward to learning more about the specifics. Under President Trump’s leadership, our nation is stronger, more respected on the global stage, and safer than ever before.”

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) said he’d spoken to the White House about the proposed deal and expressed support for it.

“President Trump will land this deal and end the conflict on his terms,” Fine said. “The Mullahs will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also lambasted the reported deal’s terms, calling it “straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world,” referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal struck by the Obama administration. He also called for a return to war.

Pompeo’s post faced furious backlash from White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, Trump advisor Alex Brusewitz and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL).

Despite skepticism over the terms and reports of ongoing Iranian strikes, several prominent hawkish Republicans are voicing support for President Donald Trump’s fragile two-week ceasefire agreement with Iran.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among the most prominent backers of the war in the Senate, said in a post on X that a “diplomatic solution to end the reign of terror in Iran is the preferred outcome” but said he has concerns about the supposed 10-point plan presented by Iran, which would require the lifting of all U.S. sanctions on Iran, among other steps. 

U.S. officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, said the U.S. did not agree to that version of the deal, but that at least three versions of the Iranian proposal have circulated. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the original 10-point plan proposed by Iran was “fundamentally unserious” and was “literally thrown into the garbage by President Trump and his team.”

“I look forward to the architects of this proposal, the Vice President and others, coming forward to Congress and explaining how a negotiated deal meets our national security objectives in Iran,” Graham said.

He added that all of Iran’s enriched uranium must be turned over to the United States and that Iran cannot have any enrichment capacity.

“To those who say, Iran needs to save face by having a small enrichment program, I’m not remotely interested in providing face-saving cover to a regime that murders its own people, beats a 16-year-old girl to death for not wearing a headscarf appropriately, and is dripping in American blood,” Graham said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on his podcast that he believes Trump was prepared to follow through on his threats against Iran, but agreed to hold off in response to Pakistan’s mediation efforts and Iran’s agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as he had demanded.

“Many of the military objectives have been accomplished. The military has been degraded almost out of existence,” Cruz said, though he acknowledged that it doesn’t take much for Iran to disrupt trade in the Strait of Hormuz. “There’s virtually no military left. It’s like four guys with a slingshot sitting on the back of a camel.”

But Cruz said he would be skeptical that the ceasefire would hold if Iran’s attacks on its neighbors continued.

He said his definition of success in Iran would be taking away Iran’s ability to kill Americans and innocent people in the region and its ability to become a nuclear power. He said that full regime change is the responsibility of the Iranian people, not the United States.

Responding to a post by Trump about the agreement and the damage to Iran’s nuclear program, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-AR) said, “President Trump has always been crystal clear: there must be no uranium enrichment for Iran. And he’s absolutely right. That was a central flaw in Obama’s disastrous deal. Because the only reason Iran would demand to enrich uranium is to build a nuclear weapon.”

He didn’t address the substance of the ceasefire deal itself.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) praised Trump’s execution of the war and the ceasefire, saying that the war had shown that the U.S. is the strongest nation and has the strongest military on the planet.

“He has made it clear – Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. And so, it’s really through his efforts that the U.S. not only secured a temporary ceasefire but more importantly, they obtained a commitment from Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” Cramer said in a statement. “That has been his short-term goal in recent days, and it’s an important goal that affects a lot of people, not just the United States but our Middle East friends and certainly Europe.”

He called on other allies to step up — and predicted they would following the ceasefire agreement. But he also urged continued caution.

“Now we have to keep our eyes wide open obviously, it’s not like the Iranian regime is good for keeping its word, but in my mind, this is a pretty good breakthrough,” Cramer continued. “I’m grateful for President Trump’s unwavering dedication to defending our country and holding our adversaries accountable, and frankly, holding some allies accountable as well. I certainly hope they learned from this lesson.”

Other senior Republicans haven’t commented on the ceasefire agreement yet.

Off Capitol Hill, some prominent right-wing voices who have had the president’s ear are taking a different view of the deal.

Conservative commentator Mark Levin emphasized that Iran violated the ceasefire deal shortly after it was signed. He accused Iran of trying to use the negotiations to “blackmail us and Israel” to allow Hezbollah to continue its attacks on Israel and divide the U.S. and its allies.

“The 2-week ceasefire is being violated right now by the Iranian-Nazi regime.  Missiles are being fired into Israel and perhaps other countries in the region.  Are they able to defend themselves?” he said on X. We have the right man as president, and I bet he’s furious about this.”

“But this will be the question throughout — that is, do we expect the Iranian regime to honor a deal, how will we monitor it, and how will we enforce it.  These will all be very difficult issues to resolve,” he continued.

Responding to the 10-point Iranian proposal, Levin said simply, “Uh oh.”

Far-right influencer Laura Loomer said on X the deal is “a negative for our country” and “we didn’t really get anything out of it.”

Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, passed in response to the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran in 2015, any agreement pertaining to Iran’s nuclear capabilities must be submitted to Congress for its review, and Congress has the ability to vote to block any such agreement.

In spite of the ceasefire, Democrats are continuing to agitate for Trump’s removal from office and plan to pursue war powers resolutions to force an end to the war.

In a Dear Colleague letter on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said that Democrats plan to attempt to pass a war powers resolution during a pro-forma session on Thursday by unanimous consent — an effort that is likely to fail. 

Jeffries also said that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and committee Democrats plan to hold a briefing on Friday on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment” — indicating that the doomed push to remove Trump from office has backing from the top echelons of the Democratic Party.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Democrats are planning to force a vote on a war powers resolution next week, the fourth since the war began on Feb. 28, when the Senate returns from its own recess.

A newly released CNN poll, conducted this month, illustrates the resilience of a hawkish DNA within the Republican Party and among its voters even amid the rise of an isolationist strain that has sought to gain influence in the GOP during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The poll asked respondents: “Do you think the United States should or should not take the leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international problems?” Overall, 43% took the more active approach, while 56% took a more isolationist view.

Republicans, however, remained the strongest advocates of a muscular American role in world affairs, with 52% supporting America taking a leading role and 47% opposed. By contrast, just 42% of Democrats and 39% of independents shared the more hawkish worldview.

Notably, the shift in more isolationist sentiment was almost entirely driven by Democrats and independents since the last CNN survey in March, which found majority support for significant American global engagement. In the March survey, a 57% majority of Democrats preferred more American involvement in the world, a number that dropped 15 points in the last four months. The Republican share of those preferring American engagement remained steady at 52%.

The results from the CNN polls suggest there’s a more committed core of Republican-voting hawks that is more resilient than the shifting political winds, whereas the Democratic foreign policy worldview appears more dependent on partisanship and what’s happening in the news at the time. 

In March, at the time of the first CNN poll, Democrats showed a surge of support for foreign engagement — in large part, because they were responding to the hostile reception Trump delivered at the time to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was seeking American military aid to his country. Back then, Trump wrongly blamed Zelensky for causing the war, and attacked him as a dictator in the run-up to the ugly confrontation at the White House. It was the high point of isolationism in Trump’s second term — and prompted an uptick of hawkishness among Democrats.

But since then, Trump has sharpened his rhetoric against Russian President Vladimir Putin and agreed to send Ukraine offensive weapons, in a reversal of his previous reluctance. He also decided to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities despite alarmism from an isolationist faction within his party, which turned out to be a major military (and political) success. 

A recent Echelon Insights survey underscored that Trump’s hawkish turn has broadened and deepened support for strongly supporting American allies within the party. A clear 49-36% of Trump voters, asked if they supported continuing to give weapons to Ukraine, said yes. When informed that it was Trump’s decision to aid Ukraine further, nearly two-thirds of Trump supporters embraced the decision.

The actions on Capitol Hill are consistent with the polling. When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) proposed a series of amendments cutting off aid to foreign allies, the vast majority of Republicans voted against them. Even on her proposal to cut military aid for Ukraine, 141 of the 217 House Republicans took the pro-Ukraine side. 

And when Greene proposed to block missile defense funding that the U.S. gives to Israel, only one other Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), joined her. Indeed, there were more Democrats who joined with MTG (four) than Republicans — in a sign of the “horseshoe theory” of the far left and far right uniting in their extremism.

Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear program appears to have created a momentum shift within the party, pushing back the faction of isolationists seeking to gain influence in the administration but also building support for a familiar brand of muscular engagement that has defined the party for generations.