The U.S.’ moves to evacuate some State Department personnel and military families from the Middle East are seen by experts as a potential sign of a U.S. or Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program — or, at least, a signal to Iran that the U.S. is prepared for such action, ahead of a planned round of nuclear talks with Tehran. 

The moves come as President Donald Trump’s self-imposed deadline for the talks is approaching this week, and Trump has expressed public frustration with the lack of progress being made. There have been conflicting reports about whether the talks expected this weekend are still slated to occur.

The State Department is drawing down personnel in Iraq, the department said, and the Pentagon is allowing for voluntary departures of military families from locations in the Middle East. The United Kingdom, separately, issued a maritime trade warning about a potential “escalation of military activity” in the Middle East.

Dana Stroul, the research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, noted that the Trump administration had conducted mandatory drawdowns of State Department personnel in Iraq at the end of the first Trump administration. The Pentagon evacuations, she noted, are thus far optional.

“This was part of the Iran policy approach [during Trump’s first administration] to increase pressure on the Iraqi government to get attack[s] against U.S. forces to stop,” Stroul told Jewish Insider. “So some of the people making these decisions inside the Trump administration have prior experience with reducing our presence in the region as part of a pressure play against Iran.”

But, she added, a “reduction in military families in the Gulf is the first step military planners would want to take if they were trying to reduce risk to U.S. personnel before large-scale, significant military operations.”

“If you’re trying to minimize risk before significant military operations, this is what you do. But right now they’re voluntary, not ordered,” Stroul continued.

Stroul argued that, in combination with the recent call between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump’s public comments that he’s been frustrated by Iran’s posture in negotiations, “Tehran should take notice.”

Daniel Shapiro, Stroul’s successor in the deputy assistant secretary role, said that the administration “is clearly into some major preparations for possible military action vs Iran (by US and/or Israel).”

“A useful signal ahead of round 6 of nuke talks,” Shapiro continued. “Need to be prepared to back it up.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director for United Against Nuclear Iran, framed the move as a likely sign of action, noting that congressional testimony by Gen. Erik Kurilla, who leads U.S. Central Command, set for Thursday morning, had been postponed.

“Something is cooking,” Brodsky said.

John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, told JI he believes that the moves are primarily an “unambiguous signal to the Iranians in advance of the next round of talks that U.S. patience is not unlimited and that time may be running out for them.”

He said the steps will take time to carry out but “they all have the indicia of the classic playbook that the United States would start rolling out in advance of anticipated hostilities. And of course it’s all being undertaken without much stealth and secrecy, but rather in a manner that ensures the Iranians and the rest of the world will know about it.”

He added that it “doesn’t necessarily have to be just one or the other,” and the moves should leave Iran guessing.

“The fact that the immediate purpose of these moves might primarily be a signaling mechanism to influence Iran’s posture in the negotiations doesn’t ipso facto mean it’s all just a bluff — although, if we’re honest, bluffing and then retreating is clearly often an integral part of President Trump’s negotiating MO and the ‘art of the deal,’” Hannah said. “That said, it could also be a deadly serious first step to put Iran on notice that it’s got one last chance to take the deal on offer or face the wrath of a U.S. military strike.” 

“Trump is perfectly capable of going either way and the Iranians shouldn’t sleep too comfortably trying to figure out which one of those possibilities  they’re facing,” he continued. “If they guess wrong, the outcome for them is potentially catastrophic.”

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, framed the moves more as a negotiating tactic.

“Ahead of round 6, the U.S. is signaling: failure at the table means real consequences,” Dubowitz said on X. “Starting to move non-essential personnel and families —reversible but not trivial. Message to Khamenei: you can end this peacefully, or face serious preparedness if you don’t.”

Kurilla said in response to a question from lawmakers on Tuesday about retaliation from a potential Israeli strike on Iran that the U.S. is continually assessing threats to military personnel in the Middle East and taking steps to address potential vulnerabilities.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine declined to definitively say on Wednesday whether they believed Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it acquired one. 

As they testified before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Hegseth and Caine to provide their “professional military judgement” on whether they agreed with Israel’s assessment that Tehran would use a nuclear weapon against the Jewish state. 

“I think they would potentially do that,” Caine said. “I think they’d use it to pressure Israel. I don’t know whether they would use it.”

“I think Israel believes, and quite understandably, that it is an existential threat to their existence, and that in the hands of the wrong Iranian, a cleric or a radical, that they would seek to use it,” Hegseth said. 

Graham replied to Hegseth, “Well, is this a radical cleric that exists there today? If he’s not, who the hell would be? So I’m trying to get everybody to think, let’s don’t do what we did in the ‘30s. They’re going to use a nuclear weapon if they get it.”

The South Carolina senator began his questioning on the topic by asking Hegseth and Caine if each thought the world “miscalculated Hitler in the ‘20s and ’30s,” which both men responded to affirmatively. “We certainly did not understand the scope of the threat, yes,” Hegseth replied. 

“The guy wrote a book [saying that] I want to kill all the Jews and nobody believed him. … The danger of that is like 50 million people get killed. So let’s not do that now,” Graham said.

After asking Hegseth and Caine about the Iranian nuclear program, Graham pressed both about China’s intentions in Taiwan and Russia’s plans in Europe beyond Ukraine while encouraging them to take a tougher posture on U.S. adversaries. 

“Listen, I like what you’re doing. I just think we got to get this stuff right. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon because they’ll use it. They’re homicidal maniacs who are religious Nazis. China is an expansionist power who will take Taiwan if we don’t deter them. Russia will dismember Ukraine and keep going if we don’t stop them,” Graham told the two. 

Graham then turned to the issue of radical Islamic terrorism and asked if al-Qaida would use a nuclear weapon if it acquired one. “A nuclear weapon in the hands of al-Qaida would be a very bad thing,” Hegseth replied.

“Is there a whole lot of difference between a nuclear weapon in the hands of al-Qaida and the Ayatollah in Iran? I don’t think so. They just have a different religious reason to do it,” Graham said. 

At a Senate hearing, @LindseyGrahamSC asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine whether they believed Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it acquired one.

"I’m trying to get everybody to think, let’s don’t do what we did in the ‘30s.… pic.twitter.com/e6U7nIKwPS

— Jewish Insider (@J_Insider) June 11, 2025

Graham is set to introduce a resolution on Thursday affirming that the only acceptable outcome of U.S. nuclear talks with Iran would be the total dismantlement of its enrichment program.

Many Republicans on Capitol Hill have expressed concern that the Trump administration could agree to a deal with terms similar to former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement. 

For his part, Graham has expressed confidence that Trump would not allow for any enrichment, citing recent private conversations with the president.

Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, said on Tuesday that he had provided “a wide range of options” to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump for carrying out U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program if negotiations with Tehran fail to achieve the dismantlement of its nuclear program.

Kurilla affirmed, under questioning from the House Armed Services Committee, that the military is prepared for a strong show of force against Iran if it refuses to give up its nuclear program. He said that Iran is continuing to increase its stockpiles of uranium enriched to 60% purity, for which he said there are no legitimate civilian uses. 

Kurilla added that Iran is in a “weaker strategic position” than it was pre-Oct. 7, but still maintains “a lot of operational capabilities, in terms of their long-range weapons.”

He also emphasized that China, in purchasing the majority of Iran’s exported oil, is “effectively supporting and financing Iran’s malign behavior.” He said that the administration’s moves to sanction “teapot refineries” in China were a major step.

Kurilla said that a stand-alone Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would increase the risk of attacks on U.S. forces in the region, but added that “every day, we’re making assessments of our posture and our risk to force, and we made adjustments based on those. We’re fielding new systems and new equipment and making adjustments every single day.”

Pressed by Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) about Michael DiMino, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, who had previously downplayed U.S. interests in the region and opposed action against Iran and its proxies, Katherine Thompson, the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, largely demurred, saying that she was not involved in DiMino’s hiring and could not speak to his positions.

She said that her superior, Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy who himself made comments opposing strikes on Iran, which he walked back during his confirmation process, is in line with the administration’s policy.

“We support the president’s objective to not only, first and foremost, defend the State of Israel but second, of course, deny Iran the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. That is something that we are 100% committed to,” Thompson said. “I will also note that we support the president’s objectives and stand ready to provide military options should his strategy of pursuing peace with Iran through a negotiated solution [fail].”

Ryan said that he was concerned that “dissonance” and “lack of clarity” in the administration’s public statements on its willingness to allow Iran to enrich uranium as part of an agreement was signaling “division and weakness to our adversaries.”

Asked about the U.S. ceasefire with the Houthis, Kurilla and Thompson said that the U.S. bombing campaign had achieved the goal Trump had set out of restoring freedom of navigation for U.S. ships through the Red Sea. Kurilla pointed to a recent transit of U.S. and allied naval vessels through the Red Sea as evidence.

While the ceasefire made no provisions to halt Houthi attacks on Israel, which have continued, Kurilla insisted that the U.S. is continuing to defend Israel through the operation of an American THAAD missile defense system in Israel and other efforts to intercept Houthi missiles and drones fired at the Jewish state.

He acknowledged that normal commercial traffic through the region has not yet resumed, but said that it would be a “lagging indicator” that would increase over time as insurance rates for commercial ships transiting the region drop.

Thompson said that the U.S. is not fully withdrawing from the Houthi issue, noting that the group is still designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S., and said the administration continues to pursue a “whole of government approach” to the Iran-backed group. 

She said the U.S. is working to have Gulf partners take a greater role in countering the Houthis and “develop a regional solution that empowers our Gulf partners … to tackle the long-term elements of the problem set.”

Kurilla said that permanently ending the Houthi threat will require stopping covert shipments of weapons and weapon components from Iran to Yemen.

“They would die on the vine without Iranian support,” Kurilla said, adding that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel remain on the ground in Yemen assisting with assembling and operating those weapons.

Pressed at one point by Rep. Derek Van Orden (R-WI) on why the U.S. is not sinking ships bringing weapons to the Houthis, Kurilla responded that the key challenge has been identifying the ships and the weapons among the many ships transiting the vast area of the Red Sea. But he said that when such ships are identified, the U.S. can and has intercepted and captured them.

Thompson said that European allies have taken positive steps toward collaborating on this mission and Kurilla said that the United Nations’ inspection mechanism for Yemen had also recently taken steps to increase inspections of containers, though he said that it should require the full unloading of all containers to verify their contents.

He also noted that the Houthis have been spreading across the region their knowledge and expertise gained from upgrading Iranian drones to attack Israel. He said the group and its personnel have a presence in Iraq and are sharing technical expertise with Iranian personnel as well as members of Iranian proxy groups in Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah.

He said that the Houthis also maintain cells in Syria and Lebanon and have conducted diplomatic outreach to Russia and China.

But, Kurilla continued, Iran’s vision of a “Shia crescent” through the Middle East has collapsed with the fall of the Syrian government — ”probably the single biggest event that has happened in the Middle East” — and the degrading of Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies.

He praised Israel’s success against Iran’s proxies, at one point describing its “disintegration” of Hezbollah as “brilliant” and saying that it should be studied by every military in the world.

He said that Iran is attempting to make inroads into Iraq, but that the Iraqi government has largely rejected them.

“I would offer there has rarely been a time with greater opportunity to protect [our] national interests [in the Middle East], but only if we have the courage to step through that window,” said Kurilla, who will soon be retiring after 37 years in military service. 

According to public reporting, Kurilla has largely been seen as a hawkish voice in the Trump and Biden administrations and a close ally of Israel.

Kurilla said the U.S. is “transitioning from security guarantor to security integrator” in the Middle East, which requires the U.S. to maintain a “sufficient and a sustainable posture” in the region, as well as to improve foreign military sales to partners in the region.

Asked at multiple points about Qatar’s reliability as a U.S. ally, Kurilla defended Doha as a reliable and eager partner. He said that the U.S. is working to bring Qatar into the military supply chain to repair and manufacture shared weapons systems, noting that it had been enlisted to repair a component of a Patriot missile defense system the previous week.

“We have a phenomenal relationship with them, military-to-military,” Kurilla said. “They have been incredibly supportive of everything we do. Generally, the answer is, ‘Yes, what is the question,’ when I talk to them.”

Kurilla said that U.S. partners are also critical to anti-terrorist missions in places such as Syria and Iraq, and allow the U.S. to keep its operating force in the Middle East relatively small, even as those troops in the Middle East have repeatedly been on the front lines in the past year.

In Syria, he said that the U.S. is working with Kurdish partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces, to integrate them into the new Syrian government, and said that Turkey is playing a positive role in those efforts.

But he also warned that the current Syrian government is being run by a small group of individuals and that he is deeply concerned about its stability, saying President Ahmed al-Sharaa  may also bring foreign terrorist fighters, who helped bring his government to power, into the fold. 

He said that U.S. troops remain in-country for counterterrorism missions, including one carried out against ISIS forces the morning of the hearing. But he said the U.S. is currently undertaking a process to review and consolidate its forces inside Syria into a smaller number of bases.

Kurilla further said that a key obstacle for U.S. relationships and goals in the region has been delays in U.S. foreign military sales to allies, frustrating those partners and imperiling efforts to integrate U.S. and allied systems across the region. He cited obstacles in the Defense Department, Congress and the defense production industry.

For the U.S.’ own purposes, he also noted that U.S.-produced air-defense systems are significantly more expensive than systems such as the Arrow, which is co-produced with Israel.

He added that the U.S. had learned much, particularly in improving technical and software capacities for air defense systems, from its ongoing operations in the Middle East.

Multiple Democrats pressed Kurilla on what role the U.S. military could play in delivering aid to civilians in Gaza. Kurilla said that the U.S. government is currently not involved in aid delivery, but highlighted the efforts of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a positive step.

“Hamas hates that because Hamas no longer has control over that distribution,” Kurilla said.

He said the military would be prepared to assist if asked to do so.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is set to introduce a resolution affirming that the only acceptable outcome of U.S. nuclear talks with Iran would be the total dismantlement of its enrichment program, Jewish Insider has learned. Graham says he hopes to introduce the legislation on Thursday. 

Graham first unveiled the resolution last month alongside Sens. Katie Britt (R-AL) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) in response to President Donald Trump’s nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Many Republicans on Capitol Hill have grown wary that the Trump administration could agree to a deal with terms akin to former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement, though Graham has expressed confidence that Trump would not allow for any enrichment, citing recent private conversations with the president.

The original text of the resolution commends the Trump administration for engaging directly with the Iranians while calling out the regime’s “decades of cheating,” its “barbaric nature, and its open commitment to destroying the State of Israel,” all of which Graham says must be addressed in a deal. It affirms his support for the “complete dismantlement and destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s entire nuclear program.”

The resolution also backs a subsequent agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, also known as a “123 Agreement,” requiring Tehran to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency’s protocols for verification of nuclear safeguards and “forgo domestic uranium enrichment, the reprocessing of spent fuel, and the development or possession of any enrichment or reprocessing infrastructure or capacity.”

Speaking to JI on Tuesday, Graham said he has been engaging with the White House and Israeli leadership to ensure that all parties approve of the resolution’s language. The South Carolina senator said that he is in the process of making alterations to the resolution at the request of both sides.

“We’re working with the White House, they want some changes. I sent it to Israel, they want some changes,” Graham said. 

He says he hopes the resolution will receive a floor vote by next week, though he did not say if or when he plans to try to force floor consideration on it. 

“It’d be the most destabilizing thing in the world, I believe, if Iran ever acquired a nuclear weapon capability. I think the Sunni Arab world would want to go down that road also. You’d have a nuclear arms race in the Mideast, but more importantly to me, I think they would use it. I think if Iran had a nuclear weapon, they would use it as part of their radical religious regime,” Graham said at a press conference on his resolution last month. 

“The Ayatollah and his henchmen are virtual religious Nazis. They openly talk about destroying the State of Israel. They write it on the side of their missiles. And I believe them. I believe that they want to purify Islam, take over the holy sites in Saudi Arabia, wipe out the Jewish state and drive us out of the Mideast. And a nuclear weapon is part of that agenda. It’s not an insurance policy for regime survivability. It is a weapon to carry out one of the most extreme, religious ideas on the planet,” he continued. 

President Donald Trump on Monday criticized Iran’s continued demands on uranium enrichment as part of the terms of a nuclear deal with the United States.

Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters from the State Dining Room about his phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in the day. Trump said the call went “very well” but declined to offer specifics beyond acknowledging that Iran was “the main topic.” He also added that the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon were also discussed. Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the call lasted around 40 minutes. 

“They [Iran] are good negotiators, but they’re tough. Sometimes they can be too tough, that’s the problem. So we’re trying to make a deal so that there’s no destruction and death. We told them that. I have told them that. I hope that is the way it works out. It might not work out,” Trump said.

Asked what the main impediment to getting a deal with Iran is, Trump replied: “They’re just asking for things that you can’t do. They don’t want to give up what they have to give up, you know what that is. They seek enrichment, we can’t have enrichment. We want just the opposite. And so far, they’re not there. I hate to say that because the alternative is a very, very dire one, but they’re not there. They have given us their thoughts on the deal and I’ve said it’s just not acceptable.”

Netanyahu convened a meeting of his security cabinet immediately following the Monday morning call, for which neither the White House nor the Prime Minister’s Office offered readouts. 

Nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran have been ongoing since March. Trump said that negotiators will meet next on Thursday. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Monday that Tehran plans to send the U.S. a counteroffer to the proposal the Trump administration presented in the “coming days.”

A new bipartisan letter sent Friday by 16 House lawmakers to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff argues that any nuclear deal with Iran must permanently dismantle its capacity to enrich uranium — a notable message particularly from pro-Israel Democrats to the administration.

The letter highlights that an insistence on full dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment capabilities is not only a Republican position, and that President Donald Trump will not be able to count on unified Democratic support for a deal that falls short of that benchmark. Previously, 177 House Republicans said they also demand a deal that does not allow enrichment and some pro-Israel Democrats have expressed the view individually.

“We wholeheartedly agree that Iran must not retain any capacity to enrich uranium or continue advancing its nuclear weapons infrastructure,” the letter, which frames the appeal as an endorsement of Rubio and Witkoff’s public positions on the subject, states. “There is widespread bipartisan support for this requirement and we appreciate your commitment to this essential cornerstone of any agreement.”

The letter highlights the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which mandates that any agreement with Iran be submitted for congressional review, and emphasizes, “for any agreement to endure, it must have strong bipartisan support. We urge you to engage with Congress as negotiations proceed to ensure that any final agreement commands broad support.”

The lawmakers called on the officials to work with the U.S.’ European allies to “promptly invoke the snapback mechanism” to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran if talks fail to yield an agreement that fully dismantles Iran’s nuclear program.

They note that, given the Oct. 18 expiration of the snapback provision, “the process must begin by late Summer at the latest if no deal is reached. Iran’s repeated violations must be met with clear consequences.”

“The Iranian regime must understand that the United States is unwavering in its demand that Iran’s uranium enrichment capability be totally dismantled,” the letter reiterates. “We appreciate your leadership on this pressing matter vital to America’s national security interests and stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The letter, led by Reps. Laura Gillen (D-NY) and Claudia Tenney (R-NY), was co-signed by Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Wesley Bell (D-MO), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Don Bacon (R-NE), Eugene Vindman (D-VA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Grace Meng (D-NY), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Chris Pappas (D-NH).

Pappas is also mounting a run for the U.S. Senate.

Another week, another round of evidence showing that a growing faction of isolationist-minded foreign policy advisors — or, in the parlance of some on the MAGA right, the “restrainers” — are slowly but surely gaining influence in the Trump administration’s second term.

If personnel is policy, it suggests the second Trump term will feature a markedly different approach to the Middle East than his record from 2017-2021, which included the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and four Arab countries, the elimination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qassem Soleimani and the withdrawal from former President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

We reported this week that the Senate will soon consider the nomination of Justin Overbaugh to be deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security. Overbaugh is just the latest of several senior Pentagon nominees who come from Defense Priorities, a Koch-backed think tank that has generally argued the U.S. should scale back its involvement in global conflicts, including in the Middle East. 

It’s not just at the Defense Department. A senior State Department official told Jewish Insider that at Foggy Bottom, too, the “restrainers” are ascendant. Morgan Ortagus, an Iran hawk who has been serving as deputy Middle East special envoy under Steve Witkoff, plans to depart the office. At the National Security Council, top officials focused on Israel and the Middle East were pushed out last month as President Donald Trump seeks to centralize foreign policy decision-making in the Oval Office. 

This story is more than just a gossipy tale of White House palace intrigue. This factional foreign policy battle is set to have major global consequences. The impact is already clear: Trump is pursuing nuclear negotiations with Iran, led by Witkoff, that may result in a deal — one that reportedly could allow Iran to at least temporarily continue enriching uranium, a position that would have been unimaginable in Trump’s first term.

The ongoing, ever-extending negotiations and apparent concessions to Iran — along with occasional leaks from unnamed American officials telegraphing Israel’s military plans — have reduced the leverage to pressure Iran to make significant concessions. While Trump has threatened military action if the talks break down, the actions from the U.S. side suggest they’re eager to make a deal at any cost.

It’s not a coincidence that malign actors are taking advantage of American goodwill. Last month, Trump abruptly abandoned a bombing campaign against Yemen’s Houthi militia, announcing a truce with the Iranian proxy even as the group continues to threaten Israel with missiles. While Trump claimed to have reached a ceasefire with the Houthis to make the trade lanes safer, commercial shipping companies are continuing to avoid the Red Sea and Suez Canal shipping lanes, according to The New York Times.

Trump’s reassignment of hawkish former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to serve as ambassador to the United Nations last month was the first of a series of moves that have since diminished the influence of those advocating a more traditional conservative foreign policy worldview of peace through strength, and projecting military power to deter American enemies.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also serving as U.S. national security advisor, would’ve been considered firmly in that camp until this year. But since joining the Trump administration, Rubio has managed to maintain his influence by accommodating the ascendant faction of isolationists in the administration.

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.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday rejected a nuclear deal with the “rude, insolent” U.S. that would require the Islamic Republic to stop enriching uranium, one of President Donald Trump’s core requirements for any nuclear agreement.

In a speech at the mausoleum of former Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini, which was translated and posted on Khamenei’s official X account, the Iranian leader said that Iran’s “enemies have focused all their attention on this very process of uranium enrichment.” 

“A nuclear industry without enrichment capabilities is useless because we would then be dependent on others to obtain fuel for our power plants,” he said. 

Iran’s supreme leader railed against the American demand, saying that it would make his country “reliant on them for radiopharmaceuticals, energy, desalination equipment and in tens of other critical sectors.”  

“The rude, insolent U.S. leaders want this. They’re opposed to progress and self-sufficiency for the Iranian people … Those in power today — the Zionists and the Americans — should know they can’t do a damn thing in this area,” Khamenei stated.

“What the U.S. is demanding is that [Iran] should have no nuclear industry at all and be dependent on them. To the American side and others we say: Why are you interfering and trying to say whether Iran should have uranium enrichment or not? That’s none of your business,” Khamenei argued.

Khamenei’s remarks came a day after Trump posted on Truth Social that “under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!”

The Trump administration has reportedly been negotiating an interim deal that would allow Iran to enrich uranium to 3% until a final agreement is reached in which the Islamic Republic can no longer enrich its own uranium. Under the terms of the proposal, the U.S. would facilitate the construction of dedicated enrichment plants in the Middle East to provide Iran with uranium for civilian use. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency reportedly sent a confidential report to member states last week that said Iran had increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium by about 50%. Iran is believed to have material that can be converted into about 10 nuclear weapons in less than two weeks, according to U.S. estimates. American intelligence has assessed that it would take Tehran a few months to assemble a nuclear bomb using the weapons-grade fissile material.

Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan praised President Donald Trump for his strategy of engagement with Iran on their nuclear weapons program and predicted that the Trump administration would reach a deal that “is going to look and feel pretty similar to the” 2015 nuclear deal reached by former President Barack Obama.

Sullivan made the comments on the Unholy Podcast, hosted by Channel 12 anchor Yonit Levi and The Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, when asked how he views Trump’s embrace of diplomacy with Iran after withdrawing from the Obama-era deal in his first term. Sullivan, who helped negotiate the 2015 agreement before serving as former President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, noted that Trump referred to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as “the worst deal in human history.”

“The irony is not lost on me that now they are negotiating something that, in its broad elements, is going to look and feel pretty similar to the JCPOA. I’m not talking to anyone in the Trump administration about this. I don’t know of them engaging with other of the architects or negotiators from the Obama era, in part because, while they’re following some of the blueprint of the JCPOA, I think from a marketing perspective, they want to distance themselves and say [that] whatever the Trump deal is is going to be so much better than the Obama deal. I will find it very interesting to watch them make that case,” Sullivan said. 

The former national security adviser said he was monitoring public developments with regard to how the uranium enrichment issue was addressed in the ongoing negotiations. Sullivan noted that the issue “has both hung up the negotiations and created this big fight, frankly, within the Republican party.”

Citing the risk of the “potential for retaliation by Iran against both Israel and the United States in the region,” Sullivan said that, “I’ve always thought that a diplomatic resolution that puts Iran’s nuclear program in a box is the right way to proceed. And on this, unlike on many other issues, on foreign policy, I seem to be on the same page as Donald Trump.”

Asked about Trump’s decision to not stop in Israel during his recent Middle East visit and if his overall approach to extracting concessions from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu served as evidence that the Biden administration should have taken a firmer stance with the Israelis, Sullivan argued there were commonalities between Trump and Biden’s approach to the Gulf states. 

“Donald Trump likes peace and he likes deals. That’s his basic approach to the region. And he looks at Bibi and he says, ‘Is Bibi going to give me peace or deals? No. Is MBS [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman]? Yes. Is MBZ [UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan]? Yes. Even, are the Iranians? Maybe. So are the Houthis, maybe they’ll give me a deal.’ So really I think what he’s doing is saying, ‘Can Bibi be a partner in the things I’m trying to accomplish here, deescalation and deals?’ And since he’s kind of concluded the answer is no, he’s just going to go off and largely do that himself,” Sullivan explained. 

“That means cutting a deal with the Houthis that essentially still leaves the Houthis in a position where they’re attacking Israel and saying they’re going to hold Israeli link shipping at risk. It has him potentially doing a deal with Iran, despite misgivings from Israel. And of course, it has him pursuing these massive economic deals with Saudi and the UAE,” he continued. 

Sullivan argued that the Biden administration “worked to pave the way for a lot of the strengthened relations with countries in the Gulf,” pointing to partnerships they made with the Saudis and Emiratis.

“We had a different approach on some of this AI and tech stuff, particularly limitations around numbers of chips that would go there. But in substance, the idea that there would be a technology partnership between the UAE and the United States, between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, that was a hallmark of the Biden approach as well. And so I don’t see a huge divergence there,” he said.

Asked about the ramifications of Israel potentially striking Iran’s nuclear program without Trump’s approval, Sullivan dismissed the notion that Netanyahu would defy the current president.

“I’m pretty skeptical that Prime Minister Netanyahu would act contrary to Trump’s wishes on this front. I think it is highly unlikely that you would see an Israeli prime minister order an attack against the express urging of an American president, particularly this American president in this time, particularly given that the U.S. is engaged in diplomacy with Iran to try to get to some kind of deal,” Sullivan said.

President Donald Trump confirmed reports that he warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone call last week not to proceed with plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities while the U.S. and Iran continue negotiations, saying that he told the Israeli leader a strike “is not appropriate right now.” 

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, the president responded to a question about the validity of the report by saying, “I’d like to be honest. Yes, I did.”

Pressed about the nature of the conversation, the president clarified, “It’s not a warning, I said I don’t think it’s appropriate. We’re having very good discussions with them [Iran] and I don’t think it’s appropriate right now.”

Trump suggested the U.S. may strike a “very strong document” with Iran “where we can go in with inspectors, we can take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want but nobody’s getting killed. We can blow up a lab but nobody’s going to be in the lab, as opposed to everybody being in the lab and blowing it up, right? Two ways of doing it.”

He affirmed he told Netanyahu to hold off “because we’re very close to a solution. Now, that could change at any moment. It could change with a phone call. But right now I think they want to make a deal and if we can make a deal, save a lot of lives.”

He said a deal with Iran could be reached “over the next couple of weeks.”

Netanyahu, for his part, denied a New York Times report that he had been pressing for military action against Iran, which could upend the talks, calling it “fake news.” 

On the new U.S.-Israel aid distribution mechanism in Gaza that went into effect this week, Trump said, “We’re dealing with the whole situation in Gaza. We’re getting food to the people.” 

Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, speaking beside Trump, added, “I think that we are on the precipice of sending out a new terms sheet that hopefully will be delivered later on today. The president is going to review it. And I have some very good feelings about getting to a long-term resolution — temporary ceasefire and a long-term resolution, a peaceful resolution of that conflict.” Witkoff did not expand on the details of the “terms sheet” nor to whom it will be delivered. 

With the Middle East in flux from Gaza to Lebanon, Syria and Iran, any week in the last 600 days would have been a busy one in Jerusalem. Still, Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) arrived in Israel on Monday at a particularly significant moment, with nuclear talks with Iran reaching a critical juncture and the U.S. and Israel moving forward with a plan to distribute humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Israel is one stop in McCormick’s first trip abroad after becoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism earlier this year. 

“There are so many issues that will be coming before the Senate … so it felt like it was appropriate to come and get the truth on the ground,” McCormick said in an interview with Jewish Insider in Jerusalem on Tuesday. “We wanted to come to Israel as a show of solidarity. It’s a very tough time now, in the aftermath of [Israeli Embassy staffers] Yaron [Lischinsky] and Sarah [Milgrim] killed in Washington, and all the polarization and the challenges with Gaza and Iran.”

In between a visit to the Western Wall and minutes before his meeting with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the group implementing the American-Israeli Gaza aid plan, which has come under fire from international aid groups on the ground, McCormick spoke with JI about the significant issues on his agenda. Tech investor Liran Tancman, one of the Israelis involved in arranging the aid distribution program, took part in the meeting with McCormick and GHF as well. 

The GHF began distributing aid on Monday, though it had to pause at one point on Tuesday, reportedly due to overcrowding. Additionally, Hamas members reportedly threatened Gazans who cooperated with the American-led effort.

“I certainly recognize … how complex a problem this is,” McCormick said. “On one hand, you want to give the humanitarian assistance that is needed to make sure innocents are able to have the support they need. But it’s also a tool that’s been hijacked by Hamas as a source of revenue, as a source of leverage and control. So, how do you balance?”

The senator noted positively that hundreds of trucks had already entered Gaza, and expressed hope that the GHF could distribute aid to families in need.

McCormick also pointed out that “this whole thing could end overnight if [Hamas] release[s] the hostages.”

His message for countries such as the U.K., France and others that have threatened action against Israel if it does not allow the U.N. to distribute aid is “to actually look at the complexity of the problem and the good faith efforts that are being taken to address it. I think that will hopefully be confidence-building for them.”

McCormick was also in Israel at a time in which the Trump administration appears increasingly concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not on board with the White House’s efforts to reach a diplomatic deal with the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program. Israel is reportedly preparing contingency plans to strike Iran. 

Tensions between Washington and Jerusalem led Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to tell Fox News on Monday that she was dispatched to Israel to tell Netanyahu to allow negotiations to run their course.

The day after meeting with Netanyahu, McCormick said, “Nobody shared any battle plans with me. Obviously, the administration is in close contact with the Israeli government … I think, ultimately, the defining point is Iran can’t have a nuclear program and can’t be on the path to having a nuclear program. That’s a defining goal.”

“I think there is an opportunity because I think Iran is at a weak moment due in part to incredible actions that Israel has taken against the terrorist proxies supported by Iran,” he added. “The political pressure on Iran is at an all-time high, and the capability of the Iranians is at an all-time low. So you’ve got a moment of opportunity, and I’m hoping that forces will come together to make the most of it.”

McCormick argued that Trump and Netanyahu’s remarks on Iran’s nuclear program are consistent with one another.

“I go to what President Trump said, which is full dismantlement of the nuclear program and no enrichment, those are his two red lines, and I listen to what Netanyahu said yesterday, which is, ‘I don’t trust them, but we need full dismantlement of the nuclear program and no enrichment,’” he said.

McCormick noted that former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, Israel’s opposition leader, said the same thing as Netanyahu about Iran in their meeting. 

“If the deal would come together in line with what President Trump has said, that would be something that would be welcome,” McCormick added. “It would be a huge step forward for the region and a huge step forward for the world.” 

Asked if Republicans in the Senate would accept a deal that fell short of those lines, McCormick first said that while he is not privy to the details of the current negotiations with Iran, “I don’t necessarily believe any of what I read [in the media]. I’ll believe it when I hear the president … I’m not going to talk about something that doesn’t exist yet.” 

The senator pointed to a letter signed by nearly all Senate Republicans urging the president to reject any deal that does not include the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

“I’ve been with the president when he’s talked about this, and I’ve heard him talk about dismantling [the Iranian nuclear program] … That’s the position that I think he’s taken and that I would take,” he stated.

When one negotiates with Iran, McCormick said, the first consideration must be to “take Iran at its word when it says it wants to destroy Israel and the United States,” and the second is that “there’s a history of untrustworthiness.”

“If you start with those two premises, then you have to get an outcome where the likelihood of a reconstitution of a nuclear Iran program is not something that is in the cards,” he said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress last week that the current negotiations with Iran are only about its nuclear program and not its terror proxies or ballistic missile program, though related sanctions remain in place.

However, McCormick said, “that doesn’t mean U.S. policy is only going to deal with [the nuclear program], and my basic view is Iran has been a bad actor and any … reducing sanctions should also require the complete termination of any support for terrorist proxies.”

Asked if that doesn’t contradict an offer to lift sanctions in exchange for a nuclear-only deal, McCormick said, “I don’t know what the deal is, but any treaty would ultimately come before the Senate and those are the kinds of questions I’ve asked.”

McCormick expressed confidence that the Trump administration would not try to circumvent the Senate, saying that “for any agreement to last, it needs to come through the Senate.”

The senator rejected the framing that there are two dueling foreign policy camps in the Trump administration, the more traditional Republicans and the “restrainers,” saying that Trump has been “very consistent” and that he has “a realpolitik view of supporting American interests.”

“I’ve seen lots of administrations … There are always conflicting views. That’s how good policies are made. You have a policy process where people get to argue and the president gets to decide,” he said.

Trump, McCormick said, has “made it very clear that the Israelis are our closest ally in the Middle East. There is no one that’s done more to support Israel … He’s been very clear on his stance on antisemitism. So listen, these are complex problems … but I think the administration stance has been a very clear one, and the president keeps coming back to peace through strength, which I think is one of the defining pieces of this foreign policy.”

As for the relationship between the U.S. and Qatar, which hosts Hamas leaders in its capital and represents Hamas’ interests in hostage and ceasefire negotiations with Israel, McCormick said: “From a realpolitik perspective, Qatar is an important part of bringing together the possibilities of a peace deal, but I think any funding that’s supporting terrorist organizations or any historical support should be an important consideration in the relationship.”

The senator posited that “our relationship with Qatar is moving in the right direction, but ultimately it depends on changing behavior where it’s not supporting groups that aren’t in line with U.S. objectives or allies of the United States.”

When it comes to concerns that Qatar is spending large sums of money to try to gain favor and influence the U.S., McCormick drew a distinction between the $400 million plane Qatar is planning to gift Trump to be used as Air Force One and then donated to his library, and Qatar’s large contributions to American universities.

McCormick has “concerns about the plane from a security perspective and an intel perspective. Obviously, we want to make sure that … there’s no national security risk associated with it.”

However, he called the donation of the plane “a sort of transaction between the U.S. government in many countries that happens in all sorts of different forms … It’ll go through whatever ethics review.”

McCormick said that funding for universities, however, is a major concern, not only from Qatar but from China, “particularly if there are motivations tied to it.”

“No one has been a stronger voice on antisemitism on campus than me,” he said. “Any foreign money that can be tied to supporting groups that are leading this antisemitism, I’m very opposed to. I think President Trump cracking down on these universities for their antisemitism, looking at the sources of funding, making federal funding contingent on dealing with antisemitism and making sure universities are doing their role is necessary.”

The top National Security Council officials overseeing the Middle East and Israel and Iran portfolios — seen as pro-Israel voices in the administration — were among the dozens of officials dismissed in a widespread purge of the NSC on Friday, two sources familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider.

Eric Trager, who was the senior director for the Middle East and North Africa — the lead official on the Middle East — and Merav Ceren, the director for Israel and Iran, were both Trump administration political appointees but were pushed out in what one official called a purge of “the Deep State” inside the NSC.

Their firings come as voices skeptical of the U.S.’ role in the Middle East increasingly establish a foothold in the administration, and as President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also the acting national security advisor, seek to restructure and slim down the key foreign policy-making body.

According to Axios, officials cut from the NSC will be moved to other positions in the government. Ceren previously came under fire from the far left and far right after false claims that she had previously worked as an Israeli Ministry of Defense official generated accusations of dual loyalty.

NSC spokesman Brian Hughes defended Ceren at the time and denied the accusations, describing her as “a patriotic American who has served in the United States government for years, including for President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressman James Comer. We are thrilled to have her expertise in the NSC, where she carries out the President’s agenda on a range of Middle East issues.” He said she “was never employed by the Israeli Defense Ministry, let alone was she an Israeli official.”

Trager and Ceren were hired under former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who was pushed aside after he added a journalist to an administration group chat about U.S. strikes on the Houthis, and after right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer accused him of staffing the NSC with a host of neoconservatives out of step with Trump.

Trager and Ceren had maintained their positions at the time, even as several of Waltz’s top hires were dismissed.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued on Wednesday that sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program can’t be separated from other sanctions on the regime as part of a nuclear deal, comparing the approach apparently being taken by the Trump administration to that of the Obama administration.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said in congressional testimony this week that talks with Tehran have revolved solely around Iran’s nuclear program and have not addressed its sponsorship of terrorism or its ballistic missile program, but said that sanctions related to terrorism and missiles would remain in place if those issues are not addressed in a potential deal.

“The Obama administration invented the category of ‘nuclear sanctions’ as an excuse to give the Ayatollah whatever he wanted for a nuclear deal,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said to Jewish Insider. 

“It has nothing to do with how Congress passed or past presidents implemented sanctions against the Iranian regime, which was to use our most powerful sanctions against the full range of Iran’s aggression. President Trump rightly refused to certify and then withdrew from the deal because he said that lifting these ‘nuclear sanctions’ gave Iran too much for too little benefit,” he continued.

Congressional Republicans argued in the past, when the original nuclear deal included a similar formula, that the distinctions between nuclear and non-nuclear sanctions were largely specious. Those same lawmakers have maintained that any new funding the regime received would ultimately fuel proxy terrorism and regional destabilization, regardless of the targets of those sanctions.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) expressed confidence that the Trump administration understood that any deal must be multi-faceted, though he noted that Congressional Republicans haven’t been briefed on the talks.

“I have to believe at the end of the day, they realize that it’s not just about enrichment, but it’s all the other enabling capabilities, because the reality is the world’s a dangerous place and if they had that underlying capability, maybe then they’ll build their own bomb,” Tillis told JI.

“We got to support Israel. Iran uses proxies to attack America and Israel, they chant ‘Death to America.’ So what they’ve got to do is they’ve got to stop enriching uranium, that’s number one. And number two, we’ve got to make sure they have no money to give their proxies,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said when asked his position on a deal.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told JI he hadn’t kept up with Rubio’s testimony, but said that addressing Iran’s proxy terrorism is crucial.

“Iran’s the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Israel is fighting proxies all the way around them. The entire region’s destabilized. Egypt is struggling economically because of the Houthis and what they’re doing,” Lankford said. “The proxies are the problem in the area and you can’t disconnect Iran and the regime and what they’re doing in the entire region to destabilize the region.”

Another Senate Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak candidly, said he has faith in Rubio, but that an arrangement as outlined by Rubio would require “an awful lot of trust built into it, and I don’t trust Iran.”

“Money is obviously fungible. And the whole point of proxies is you can do whatever you want without doing whatever you want [directly],” the senator said. “There’s just an awful lot of trust built into.”

The senator said, “There’s probably a time where I’d be willing to give them a little bit of room, but they’re an awfully long ways down the road, so I don’t know. I just hope they keep a very, very tight grip on a very, very short leash.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told JI that, “I like the American position, the administration’s position of no enrichment, complete dismantlement … and [would] have to include their missile program.”

“Anything short of that would be inadequate,” he added.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) similarly argued that a deal around Iran’s nuclear weapons would likely include addressing Iran’s pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles. He added that Iran should not receive any sanctions relief without addressing its nuclear buildup.

Other senators seem to be focusing their attention more on ensuring that dismantling Iran’s enrichment remains a red line for the United States.

“At the end of the day, we’ve got to see what the final package is,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), who recently led nearly all Senate Republicans on a letter insisting on full dismantlement, said. “The biggest issue is going to be the enrichment part. If we can crack the enrichment nut, that’s a big deal.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) similarly said, “The president’s been very clear. I think the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate has been very clear. No enrichment, zero, zilch, nada, no centrifuges. The Iranian leadership doesn’t need it. They can import uranium for civil nuclear energy, so they can either take it or leave it. We can do it the easy way, the hard way.”

Striking a defiant tone on Wednesday amid intensifying international pressure to end the war in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid down his conditions for the end of hostilities.

“The world is telling us to end the war,” Netanyahu said, in the first press conference he has held in Israel since December. “I am prepared to end the war according to clear conditions: Hamas lays down its weapons, steps down from power, returns all the hostages, Gaza is demilitarized and we implement the Trump plan” to relocate residents of Gaza. 

“Whoever is calling for us to end the war is calling for Hamas to stay in power,” Netanyahu said, a day after Britain suspended free trade talks with Israel and the EU said it will review whether Israel is violating the human rights clause of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and two days after France, the U.K. and Canada threatened sanctions against Israel.

Netanyahu stressed that if there was an option for a temporary ceasefire in exchange for the release of hostages, Israel would accept that. He said there are 20 hostages confirmed to be alive in Gaza and the remains of up to 38 deceased individuals.

The prime minister reiterated previous comments he has made that friends of Israel, including U.S. senators, have said they support Israel in its war against Hamas, but they cannot accept a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which many have said worsened after Israel instituted an 11-week blockade of aid.

Addressing reports of strained ties between the U.S. and Israel, Netanyahu said that he spoke to President Donald Trump about 10 days ago and Trump told him, “Bibi, I want you to know I have a total commitment to you and to the State of Israel.”

Netanyahu said that both countries seek “together to ensure Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons, that Hamas will be thrown out of Gaza, that Trump’s plan — which I think is a genius plan — will happen,” and “change the face of the Middle East.” He stressed that the relocation plan would only be for those who wish to leave Gaza.

Referring to Trump’s recent Middle East tour, which excluded Israel, Netanyahu said, “I have no opposition to the U.S. deepening its ties to the Arab world … I think this can help broaden the Abraham Accords that I’m very interested in.”

Turning to Iran, Netanyahu said, “Iran remains a serious threat to Israel. We are in full coordination with the U.S. — we talk to them all the time. We hope that it’s possible to reach an agreement that will prevent a nuclear weapon from Iran and will prevent Iran from having the ability to enrich uranium. If it is reached, of course, we will welcome it,” he said, before adding, “In any case, Israel reserves the right to defend itself against a regime that threatens to destroy us.”

Netanyahu previously called for total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which would go farther than stopping Iran from enriching uranium. However, an official in Netanyahu’s office denied that his remark reflects a change in policy.

Speaking on the IDF’s expanded engagement in Gaza, Netanyahu laid out three phases of “Operation Gideon’s Chariots,” as the latest stage in the war is called: the immediate entry of aid into Gaza; opening aid distribution points that will be managed by American companies and secured by the IDF; and the creation of a “sterile” humanitarian zone for civilians.’

Netanyahu said that at the end of the operation, “all of Gaza’s territories will be under Israeli security control, and Hamas will be totally defeated.”

Netanyahu slammed Britain’s decision to sanction veteran settler leader Daniella Weiss, calling it “shameful” that “instead of sanctioning Hamas, they sanction a woman who is threatened every day … they are under pressure from the Islamist minority, from a population that is repeating the Hamas propaganda, the false propaganda and they give in to it. We don’t. We responded aggressively to them calling to give the ultimate reward for Oct. 7 — to give a Palestinian state. There is no greater prize for terror.” 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his first appearance on Capitol Hill since being confirmed as secretary of state that Iran’s support for regional terrorist proxies has not been part of the ongoing talks between the Iranian government and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, which Rubio said have been focused wholly on Iran’s nuclear program and enrichment capabilities.

At the same time, Rubio insisted that any sanctions related to terrorist activity and weapons proliferation would remain in place if such issues are not part of the nuclear deal. 

Rubio’s comments indicate the deal might still be subject to what some critics in the United States and the region described as a key flaw of the original nuclear deal — that it failed to address other malign activity by the regime. One U.S. lawmaker who traveled to the Middle East recently said that U.S. partners in Israel and the Arab world had argued that any deal must include non-nuclear provocations.

Rubio added that sanctions will remain in place until a deal is reached, and that European partners are working separately on re-implementing snapback sanctions, potentially by October of this year, when such sanctions expire.

He also said that Iran cannot have any level of nuclear enrichment under a nuclear deal, as it would inevitably provide a pathway for Iran to enrich to weapons-grade levels.

“About 90% of the work of enrichment is getting to that 3.67% level [necessary for civilian nuclear power]. After that, the rest of it is just a matter of time,” Rubio said. “They [Iran] claim that enrichment is a matter of national pride. It is our view that they want enrichment as a deterrent. They believe that it makes them a threshold nuclear power, and as a result, [become] untouchable.”

Rubio said that reaching a nuclear deal will not be easy, but that it is the administration’s preference. He reiterated that Iran can be permitted to have nuclear energy for civilian use, but only if it imports nuclear material from elsewhere. He said at a second hearing later in the day that a so-called 123 Agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation with the United States or an equivalent deal would be possible if Iran dismantles its enrichment capacity.

Addressing the war in Gaza, Rubio said that the U.S. is ultimately hoping to end hostilities, adding that ending the war will require Hamas freeing the hostages and ensuring that Hamas and similar terrorist groups do not maintain power in Gaza. He placed blame on Hamas for failing to agree to a ceasefire.

Rubio said that regional partners are willing to step up to help support the reconstruction of Gaza, but said that the territory’s future governance will be the key question going forward. He said that a stable governing authority capable of providing peace and security will be necessary to keep Hamas out of power.

Rubio also denied any plans for forcible or permanent relocation of Palestinians in Gaza, but said that the administration had been engaged in discussions with other regional partners about allowing Gazans who want to temporarily relocate to do so. He said he was not aware of any such conversations with Libya, as a recent NBC News report suggested.

“You don’t want people trapped [in Gaza]. They may want to come back, they may want to live there in the future, but right now, they can’t,” Rubio said. “And if there’s some nation willing to accept them in the interim period, yes, we’ve asked countries preliminarily whether they would be open to accepting people, not as a permanent situation, but as a bridge towards reconstruction.”

He said that the U.S. was “pleased to see that aid is starting to flow” into Gaza, after Israel had blocked it for 11 weeks.

He rebutted accusations that Israel is seeking to destroy Gaza, saying that Israel has told the U.S. and the world that “they need to root out the remaining elements of Hamas — who, by the way, have been an impediment to multiple ceasefires.”

Later in the day, Rubio reiterated that the U.S. sees resuming humanitarian aid as a priority and has encouraged Israel to allow aid into Gaza — a divergence from some Israeli officials and congressional Republicans who have opposed allowing aid into Gaza. He appeared to acknowledge that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire.

“Many of you have noticed there’s been a growing number of anti-Hamas protests and demonstrations as well. So there are people there that understand that this is a root cause of it,” Rubio said. “That said, you have this, you have this acute, immediate challenge of food and aid not reaching people, and you have existing distribution systems that could get them there.”

He said that Israel can defeat Hamas and prevent diversion of aid while still permitting “sufficient quantities” of aid to move into the territory. He said that organizations like the World Food Program have the capacity to immediately begin distributing aid, reflecting the reticence of Israeli and U.S. officials to rely on the U.N. for distribution.

The secretary of state continued to embrace the administration’s policy of revoking student visas and residency permits from individuals alleged to be involved in anti-Israel activity on college campuses, adding that such revocations will continue.

“We’re going to do more. There are more coming. We’re going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities,” Rubio said. “I want to do more, I hope we can find more.”

Rubio said later in the day that thousands of student visas have been revoked, but many for reasons unrelated to anti-Israel activity.

He denied reports that the administration is planning to eliminate the position of U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian territories, saying that there had instead been discussions about bringing the mission under the authority of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.

Rubio also pushed back on accusations from Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) that the administration was “abandoning” a push for normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, saying instead that “the Saudis are the ones that have expressed their inability to move forward on it, so long as the conflict is happening in Gaza. But we would love to see normalization.”

The secretary of state spoke at length about the situation in Syria and the administration’s decision to remove sanctions on the country. He acknowledged that, even with U.S. engagement, the situation in Syria could still collapse, but argued that collapse would have been a certainty if the U.S. had not chosen to engage and lift sanctions.

“It is our assessment that, frankly, the transitional authority, given the challenges they’re facing, are maybe weeks, not many months, away from potential collapse and a full scale civil war of epic proportions, basically the country splitting up,” Rubio said.

Despite President Donald Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would remove “all” sanctions from Syria, Rubio said in the second hearing that the sanctions would be removed “incrementally.” He said that Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism should be removed if Syria meets the conditions for such a move.

Rubio said that resolving internal divisions, restoring a unified Syrian national identity and creating a situation in which millions of displaced persons can return will be critical challenges going forward.

Rubio described the fall of the Assad regime and the possibility of a stable and peaceful Syria as an “opportunity for Israel,” despite the Israeli government’s deep concerns about the new Syrian government and its leader’s past jihadi loyalties. 

“They’re not viewing themselves as a launch pad for revolution. They’re not viewing themselves as a launch pad for attacks against Israel,” Rubio said. “So we think this is an extraordinary thing, if, in fact, you have in Syria a stable government that encompasses all the elements of their society and has no interest whatsoever in fighting wars with Israel over borders or anything else. I think that’s an extraordinary achievement for Israel’s security.” 

He said that the U.S. has been working to mediate conflicts between Turkey and Israel inside Syria, but added that Syrian government decisions in the medium term about whether to allow Turkey or Russia to maintain bases inside Syria will be a key issue going forward. 

He said Iran is still working to foment violence inside Syria, which he characterized as one of the most critical threats to the new government’s stability.

Rubio said Trump had moved more quickly than anticipated in meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, but said that removing sanctions will allow regional partners to surge aid in, helping to build a more stable government and unify armed forces in the country.

But Rubio also said that action from Congress will be needed to repeal other sanctions legislation like the Caesar Act that can only be temporarily waived by the president, pending performance from the Syrian government.

He described the situation in Syria as the “first test” of what he characterized as a new approach to U.S. foreign aid and engagement driven more by local personnel and bureaus than Foggy Bottom.

Rubio said that the U.S. Embassy in Syria remains closed due to concerns about potential attacks from other armed groups in the country, explaining that the U.S. does not see the new government led by former jihadist fighters as a security threat.

He said that ISIS, with which al-Sharaa was previously affiliated, “hates the transitional authority, and they hate al-Sharaa, and they hate everybody in his government and I think pose a grave risk to them.”

He said that the Syrian government is willing to take over counter-ISIS operations but currently lacks the capacity to do so.

He added that stability in Syria would help bring stability in Lebanon, and if those two countries become stabilized, it “opens up incredible opportunities around the region for all kinds of peace and security and the end of conflicts and wars.”

Rubio denied any knowledge related to a potential gift of a Boeing 747 jet from Qatar to Trump or the U.S. government.

Asked about the situation, the secretary of state declined to speak publicly about conversations with the United Arab Emirates regarding its backing of one of the warring parties in Sudan that the U.S. has found is committing genocide, but said that it doesn’t “serve the interests” of international parties to back belligerents in the conflict “because instability there is going to create a breeding nest for radicalism.”

Speaking at an event celebrating Israeli Independence Day on Monday, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that he expects additional countries will join the Abraham Accords in the coming year.

“We think [we] will have some, or a lot of announcements, very, very shortly, which we hope will yield great progress by next year,” Witkoff said of the prospects for additional normalization between Israel and Arab states, at an event organized by the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Witkoff only gave a glancing mention of Iran, with which he is the lead U.S. negotiator, in his brief remarks, pledging that Tehran would never obtain a nuclear weapon, but not elaborating on the talks beyond that.

The U.S. envoy emphasized the need for Israeli unity, saying, “I urge the Israeli people to choose unity over division, vision over disagreement and hope over despair. When you do, Israel’s future will shine brighter than ever.”

Witkoff also said that one of the most joyous moments of his life was visiting with recently freed hostages from Gaza and singing Am Yisrael Chai with them and their families. He pledged to work “tirelessly this year” toward “peace, prosperity and for Israel, unity.”

The event for Yom Ha’Atzmaut also featured remarks from Secretary of Energy Doug Burgum.

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) told Jewish Insider following a visit to Israel and Jordan last week that there is a “unique, potentially generational opportunity” to change the Middle East if the U.S. can help put an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and its support for regional terrorism.

Landsman also told JI he’s working on legislation to create a bipartisan select committee focused on Middle East peace, an initiative he said would help elevate the issue and find bipartisan solutions.

As the Trump administration proceeds in talks with Iran, Landsman said U.S. lawmakers should insist on four key components in any potential nuclear deal: stringent monitoring and verification; an Iranian commitment to an exclusively civilian nuclear program; an end to all Iranian domestic enrichment and the removal of all enriched uranium from the country; and an end to Iran’s support for regional terrorism.

He said that eliminating Iran’s support for regional terrorism would radically change the lives of the Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Yemeni, Iraqi and Israeli people — ”let these people go, leave them alone,” Landsman said.

“Everyone wins. Literally — everyone wins,” Landsman added. “That’s the key, and probably one of the most important things to Middle East peace. If [Middle East envoy Steve] Witkoff and the administration have those in play, and they’re willing to pull the right coalition together to get that done, that would be a game changer.”

He added that “anything short of that leaves the Middle East insecure and constantly in this cycle of violence. The suffering has to end.”

Landsman called on American, Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi leaders to make clear that any deal must include all four of those elements. He said he heard a consistent message to that effect from Israeli and Jordanian leaders he spoke with during his trip. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who also visited the Middle East during the recent congressional recess, delivered a similar readout.

“If [a deal is] short of any of those things, that’s a big problem,” Landsman continued, adding that the only way to compel Iran to agree to such a formulation is if it knows that the alternative is an Israeli or joint Israeli, American and allied strike on its nuclear program.

“There has to be that sense of urgency for them,” Landsman said.

The lawmaker continued that the administration’s varying comments about the nature and goal of its talks with Iran have created “uncertainty,” which is “the last thing the Middle East needs.”

“You need strong, determined, focused leadership with clear intent,” Landsman said.

The Ohio congressman added that those pushing for peace and an end to the war in Gaza should be focusing their attention on ending Iran’s malign influence and on calling on Hamas to release all of the hostages and relinquish its hold on power in Gaza.

He said that forcing Hamas out of power will require help from the international community.

“When you go over there, [you hear] that these Arab leaders are done with Hamas — they’re absolutely done,” Landsman said. “The more Hamas understands that everyone’s done with them, I think the sooner they will accept that it’s time to release the hostages and hand over Gaza to the Palestinians.”

He added that pressure is mounting on all parties involved to reach a deal to free the hostages and restore humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Coming off of the trip, Landsman announced that he’s working on legislation to create a congressional select committee — with bipartisan representation from both chambers of Congress — on Middle East peace. He said he’s working to receive support from congressional leadership.

“Congress has to be more engaged in building stronger relationships in Israel, especially within the Knesset, as well as with Palestinian leaders and leaders from partnering Arab nations,” Landsman said.

He argued that past select committees and commissions have helped bring lawmakers together with experts to implement important bipartisan legislation that has made real progress.

He said that greater “attention and dedication” from Congress will make it more likely that the hostages will be freed, the war in Gaza will end, humanitarian aid will resume and will be protected from Hamas diversion and that a coalition of U.S. partners will step up to remove Hamas from Gaza and invest in rebuilding.

“It’s just too big of a priority not to have this kind of dedicated long-term commitment from Congress,” Landsman said.

Landsman said another key takeaway from the trip was that Jordan is a “critical intelligence and security partner” for the United States and that cutting U.S. aid to Jordan “will do enormous damage to Jordan, and our allies, and to Israel and to us.”

The congressional delegation, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), was in Israel during Holocaust Remembrance Day, and spent the day with hostage families and participating in a Knesset Holocaust remembrance ceremony.

Landsman said the ceremony strengthened “my commitment to Middle East peace and a Jewish state … You just realize how critically important it is to have a safe place for Jews, to have a Jewish state that is secure and that security is linked to the success and security of the neighborhood and getting to a place of peace and more and more countries normalizing relations with Israel, which is on the horizon.”

Arab and Israeli leaders are insisting that any U.S. deal with Iran also include provisions to address Iran’s other malign activities in the region, including support for terrorist proxies, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told Jewish Insider following a trip earlier this month to meet with Israeli and Arab leaders in the Middle East.

Wasserman Schultz traveled with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) to the Middle East for the third time since Oct. 7, 2023, visiting Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Jordan.

“There was a very clear urgency that the leaders we spoke to had to make sure that we … don’t let Iran up from their very weakened state. They’ve been badly pummeled and had significant defeats,” Wasserman Schultz told JI last week. “The consensus across the region, no matter where we went, was that we needed to make sure that continued and that we prevented them from achieving their nuclear weapons goals and that we particularly prevented them from continuing their support for terrorist activity.”

She said that notion was raised by multiple leaders without prompting from the U.S. lawmakers.

She said that “across the board” the leaders shared her view that any deal with Iran must “include defanging them — and that was a term that was used repeatedly, defanging them — and stopping them from continuing to terrorize” the region.

“It was made very clear to us it was not enough to just negotiate over their nuclear ambitions, that in their weakened state, you could not separate Iran’s malignancy when it comes to all of their activity — particularly if they got any relief from sanctions,” she said.

Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, the lead negotiator for the U.S. in talks with Iran, suggested in a recent Fox News interview that the U.S. would consider allowing Iran to retain its enrichment capacity as part of a deal — a statement he later walked back — while Wasserman Schultz and Ernst were in the region. The outline Witkoff provided on Fox appeared to many to be equivalent to the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action which Trump withdrew from in his first term.

Wasserman Schultz called it “incredibly hypocritical” for officials from the new Trump administration, such as Witkoff, to endorse terms of a deal similar to the JCPOA. Wasserman Schultz ultimately voted for the JCPOA in 2015 and calls it “the most difficult vote I’ve cast in all the years I’ve been in Congress.”

She called on Witkoff and the American negotiators to seek a deal stronger than the original JCPOA, making her the latest pro-Israel Democrat to raise concerns about the potential terms of a new deal with Iran. 

She said she’s “frustrated and concerned … and even angry” that the administration seems to be going “from pillar to post. Their discussions seem like they’re happening on quicksand and I have seen nothing that looks different than the agreement that [Trump] pulled out of.”

With Iran significantly weaker and more vulnerable than it was in 2015, Wasserman Schultz said the U.S. must seize the opportunity to push for a more comprehensive deal to prevent Iranian terrorist activity and stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

If the U.S. does return to a deal similar to the JCPOA, Wasserman Schultz said that the ultimate result of Trump’s withdrawal from the original deal would have been allowing Iran to get “perilously close to a nuclear weapon” and removing the option to strengthen the original agreement through further negotiations.

Wasserman Schultz said that she told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who aggressively opposed the 2015 deal, that she expected he would offer “the same howling pushback that occurred back during the Obama years when those negotiations were taking place” if Trump moves toward a deal similar to the JCPOA.

Wasserman Schultz and Ernst also discussed the ongoing war with Hamas in their meeting with Netanyahu. Compared to previous meetings, Wasserman Schultz said she believed that the prime minister and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer outlined more comprehensive and specific strategies to achieve the release of the remaining hostages being held in Gaza.

“I probably have met with him five or six times over the course of the last year and a half there in Israel and in the U.S.,” Wasserman Schultz explained. “I was glad to see that they had varying approaches in terms of their negotiations and strategy with the ceasefire and hostage deals that they’re discussing. I was glad to see that and hear for the first time Dermer — and Netanyahu too — talk about the various options that they had, as opposed to it being a more minimalist conversation.”

Wasserman Schultz said she and Ernst had also spoken to Arab leaders about their proposals for post-war Gaza and achieving Saudi-Israeli normalization. She said the Arab leaders had been “very clear-eyed” about the difficulties of finding credible Palestinian leadership able to help move toward an eventual Palestinian state, but said they believed it was possible.

“I came away feeling like there could be some progress made. But it was clear that as a result of the war in Gaza, the signs of progress that we had hoped for when we were in Saudi Arabia on the night of Oct. 6 [2023] [were] further away at the moment than [they were] then,” Wasserman Schultz said. 

But she added that the countries which have normalized relations with Israel are not retreating from those agreements and remain committed to them, highlighting as one example of the progress made that she was able to attend a Seder on the first night of Passover in Abu Dhabi.

President Donald Trump said he’d be open to meeting directly with Iran’s president or Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but also suggested that the U.S. could attack Iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, in an interview with Time magazine, released on Friday.

When asked if he would consider such a meeting, the president responded, “Sure.”

Pressed if he is worried Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could “drag you into a war” with Iran, Trump responded, “No. By the way, he may go into a war. But we’re not getting dragged in.” The president clarified that he did not mean the U.S. wouldn’t join a war if Israel initiates one: “You asked if he’d drag me in, like I’d go in unwillingly. No, I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal. If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack.”

Trump further denied reports that he had stopped Israel from carrying out plans to strike Iran, but affirmed that he is unsupportive of an attack without attempting negotiations. “It’s not right. I didn’t stop them. But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can,” he said. “It’s possible we’ll have to attack because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, but I didn’t say no. Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped.”

Asked why his administration is revoking visas from and beginning to deport hundreds of foreign students, Trump said, “Tremendous antisemitism at every one of those rallies.” The president said he’s unconcerned about “intimidating students or chilling free speech” through this policy: “They can protest, but they can’t destroy schools like they did with Columbia and others.”

He said he would “look into” having the Department of Justice provide evidence that Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national who was detained by plainclothes federal agents on March 25, has ties to Hamas as the government has alleged, but he’s “not aware of the particular incident.”

On Saudi-Israel normalization, the president said he is confident that Saudi Arabia will join the Abraham Accords, “and by the way, I think it will be full very quickly.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested he was open to Iran maintaining a civil nuclear program and did not explicitly rule out allowing the Islamic Republic to enrich uranium itself, even as he expressed concern about such activity in an interview with The Free Press’ Bari Weiss on Wednesday.

“If Iran wants a civil nuclear program, they can have one just like many other countries in the world have one, meaning they can import enriched material,” Rubio told Weiss on the Free Press’ “Honestly” podcast. “But if they insist on enriching uranium themselves, then they will be the only country in the world that ‘doesn’t have a weapons program’ but is enriching,” he added. “I think that’s problematic.”

Rubio’s comments came as the Trump administration faces scrutiny over its mixed messaging amid ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. 

Most notably, Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, suggested last week that the U.S. was willing to allow Iran to maintain some level of nuclear enrichment, as it did in the original 2015 nuclear deal. But he soon walked back his remarks and said the administration is instead demanding Iran eliminate its enrichment program entirely.

The lack of clarity has raised concerns among foreign policy hawks who opposed the deal brokered by the Obama administration that had allowed Iran to continue its uranium enrichment up to 3.67% — which critics viewed as a pathway to a nuclear weapon. Trump pulled out of the original deal during his first term.

Rubio, who opposed the first nuclear deal with Iran, did little to elucidate how renewed talks would help deliver a different agreement, even as he hinted at some subtle distinctions in his interview with The Free Press. 

“Without using the word dismantlement, and perhaps more subtly, the secretary pointed out that Iranian domestic enrichment remains the problem,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who specializes in Iran, told Jewish Insider. “We will have to wait and see if this problem is reflected both in the marching orders special envoy Witkoff has received as well as what are the contours of any technical framework offered by U.S. negotiators in Oman.”

Rubio also “reupped that the military option was on the table, but there is no clear timeline as to when such an option might enter the U.S.’ equation,” Ben Taleblu said.

“Suffice it to say that I do believe the United States has options, but we don’t want to ever get to that,” Rubio said of a possible military strike against Iran during the interview. “We really don’t.”

Rubio more broadly argued in favor of giving “peace every chance to succeed,” adding, “I don’t want to see a war. The president certainly doesn’t want to see one either.”

But he set low expectations for ultimately achieving a deal. 

“We’re a long ways away from any sort of agreement with Iran,” Rubio said. “We recognize it’s difficult and hard. Oftentimes, unfortunately, peace is. But we’re committed to achieving a peaceful outcome that’s acceptable to everyone. It may not be possible — we don’t know.”

As nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue this week, foreign policy hawks who opposed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action are worried about the prospective nuclear deal, which former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley dubbed “Obama 2.0” on Saturday. 

They aren’t wrong to spot the similarities between what President Donald Trump’s team is reportedly negotiating now and what former President Barack Obama achieved a decade ago. Several left-leaning national security experts who served in the Obama administration and were staunch advocates for the JCPOA are now cautiously cheering on the emerging potential outline of Trump’s deal as his team flits between Rome and Oman for negotiations. 

“It’s hard not to take a jab at Donald Trump for walking away from the nuclear deal in the first place, because I think if we get to a deal it’ll probably be something pretty similar,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served as an Iran advisor at the Pentagon during Obama’s first term and then worked on Israeli-Palestinian issues under former Secretary of State John Kerry. “I have a lot of other things that I can disagree with him on, but if he wants to do the right thing here, I’ll support that.” Goldenberg is now chief policy officer at the liberal Israel advocacy group J Street.

Critics of the 2015 Iran deal took issue with the fact that it did not require Iran to stop enriching uranium, instead placing a cap — which would last for 15 years — on the level at which uranium could be enriched. Now, the Trump administration’s demands around enrichment are unclear: Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy who is leading the negotiations, said on Fox News last week that Iran should be able to enrich uranium up to 3.67%, the same level as the 2015 deal. But he walked back that claim a day later and said it should not be able to enrich uranium at all. 

“It’s always easy when you don’t have to negotiate it yourself to say, ‘Well, I would have gotten a better deal,’” said Phil Gordon, who served as the coordinator for the Middle East and the Persian Gulf on Obama’s National Security Council as the deal was being negotiated. 

Gordon, who served as national security advisor to former Vice President Kamala Harris and was expected to keep the role in a Harris presidential administration, vowed to support a deal even if it’s negotiated by Trump. “Now these guys are in a position where they’re trying to negotiate a deal and there’s a chance that they’re gonna have to accept some of the same imperfections that the Obama team did,” he said.  

Trump pulled out of the original Iran deal in 2018 and instituted a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran, increasing sanctions and vowing to take on Iran’s proxies in the region. He pledged to continue the maximum pressure campaign in his second term, but his strong interest in negotiations marks a shift from his first term strategy.

“We can point out as much as we like that it was hypocritical of him,” said Gordon. “But the ultimate goal is our national security, and it doesn’t matter who it comes from: If they manage to get a deal that achieves the goal of making sure Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon and also keeps us out of a war, that would be a good thing, and I would support it.” 

Steven Simon, who served as NSC senior director for the Middle East and North Africa under Obama in the years before the Iran deal, said Trump is welcome on the side of those who favor a diplomatic approach over a military option.

“As somebody who was involved way back when,” Simon told Jewish Insider, “it’s better late than never.” 

Israel is unhappy with the direction U.S.-Iran talks appear to be taking but continues to be in direct communication with the Trump administration, an Israeli official told Jewish Insider on Monday after a second round of talks between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic concluded over the weekend.

“It sure does look like the JCPOA,” the official said, comparing the details that have been made public from the negotiations to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. “Are we happy with it? I don’t think that’s come across in any of the statements the prime minister has made.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continued to talk tough in Iran, saying in a recorded statement on Saturday night, “I am committed to preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. I will not give in on this; neither will I slacken or retreat on this, not even a millimeter.”

Still, the official told JI, “at least there is a sense that we are very much a participant in this exercise, in the sense that we are in continuous contact with the U.S.”

“The main thing when you think about our communications with the [Trump] administration and what distinguishes them from the situation with [former President Barack] Obama is that Obama did the talks behind our back. We found out about them from the Mossad, not from the Americans. Here [with the Trump administration] the conversation is intense, multifaceted and continuous.”

Part of the ongoing communications with Washington is dealing with the “cacophony of voices” and being in contact with both the hawkish and isolationist camps in the Trump administration “to make sure Israel’s interests are being secured,” the official said.

Netanyahu confidante and Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer was in Rome, where U.S.-Iran nuclear talks took place, over the weekend, two sources confirmed to JI. Dermer conveyed Jerusalem’s concerns and red lines to the American side. Trump administration Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who was in Rome leading the American talks with Iran, is also responsible for mediating Israel-Hamas talks to reach a ceasefire and free the hostages from Gaza, and Dermer is also the head of Israel’s hostage negotiations team.

In his statement on Saturday, Netanyahu also noted that he led “many actions … over the years in order to strike the Iranian program and delay it,” echoing a statement he made earlier last week, in response to a report that the Trump administration told Israel not to proceed with a plan to strike Iran as long as negotiations are ongoing. 

Israel is still working on a narrower attack on Iranian nuclear sites that would not require American participation, according to Reuters. The strike would be smaller in scale than the plans presented to Washington. While the large-scale plans had a late spring to summer timeline, it remains unclear when Israel might execute a smaller strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

President Donald Trump said last week that he is “not in a rush” to back a military strike on Iran.

“I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death,” Trump said. “That’s my first option. If there’s a second option, I think it would be very bad for Iran, and I think Iran is wanting to talk.”

In an interview with The Telegraph published on Saturday, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar denied that Israel had authorized attack plans against Iran that Trump subsequently rejected.

“I am a member of the security cabinet, and all the intimate forums, and I don’t remember such a decision,”Sa’ar said. “I don’t think that such a decision was taken. But Israel is committed to the objective of preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. If that objective can be achieved by a diplomatic path, it is accepted.”

Sa’ar said he “believe[s] the [Trump] administration is committed to dealing with this issue. It has put it very high on its agenda. The most important thing is the objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

Asked if Witkoff is pursuing “a soft, Obama-style deal,” Sa’ar pointed to a post on X from the envoy in which he said that he seeks an agreement that would have Iran stop enriching uranium. 

Sa’ar warned that agreements with Iran are not worth much: “Iran always mocked its international obligations. I’m not excluding the option that they will try to get some partial agreements, to avoid getting to the necessary solution.”

“We are speaking directly with the Americans. We’re also speaking with European friends,” he said. “I think we all have the same objective. Iran is in a position of relative weakness, and this should be used to achieve the objective, and not to let Iran escape for the sake of convenience, to waste time until the circumstances change.”

Iran International, a U.K.-based anti-regime media outlet, outlined Iran’s proposed deal, which would allow it to continue enriching uranium to 3.67%, the level widely accepted as being for civilian purposes, but not dismantle any centrifuges or other nuclear infrastructure, which the Institute for the Study of War said “would likely preserve Iran’s ability to rapidly rebuild its nuclear program.” The Iranian proposal would also only have highly-enriched uranium moved to a third country at a late stage in the deal. Iran was thought to have enough such uranium for six nuclear weapons as of February. 

The American response has not yet been made public, other than that an administration official said they made “good progress.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the sides plan to begin technical negotiations on Wednesday.

A group of pro-Israel Jewish House Democrats wrote to Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday warning that Iran must restore International Atomic Energy Agency access to its nuclear sites before any deal can move forward in earnest.

Under a reported proposal put forward by Iran, Iran would not allow such inspections to resume until well into the implementation of a nuclear agreement.

“Absent verifiable data on Iran’s current nuclear activities, it is not possible to conduct meaningful, comprehensive negotiations or assess compliance with any potential future agreement,” Reps. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Greg Landsman (D-OH) wrote, in a letter obtained by Jewish Insider. “The failure to establish a true baseline undermines the credibility of the negotiating process and exposes the United States and its partners to strategic miscalculation.”

They said that international inspectors must regain “full, unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, before establishing final parameters of a possible agreement.”

The lawmakers argued that, because inspectors have been blocked from key sites in recent years as Iran has significantly increased its enrichment and stockpile of nuclear materials, the U.S. and its partners “lack reliable visibility into the scope and status of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Restoring inspector access is the necessary foundation for any serious diplomatic effort,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without verified insight into Iran’s current nuclear activities, the United States cannot credibly assess risks, define objectives, or safeguard the interests of our allies.”

The three Democrats said that better knowledge of Iran’s current activities and stockpiles is “particularly urgent” given recent assessments that Iran could quickly have sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons, its missile program continues to advance and it continues to support regional terrorism.

The letter is the latest in a series of signs in recent days that pro-Israel Democrats are alarmed by the Trump administration’s apparent interest in moving quickly toward a nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic.

Asked on Thursday about a New York Times report that the U.S. had rejected an Israeli plan to strike Iran, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) told JI, “We should never play public footsie with the parent company of terror and one of our top adversaries. We should take the hardest line against Iran’s terror and nuclear programs.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) similarly expressed alarm a day prior about the Times story.

Iran International reported on Thursday the alleged parameters of a deal that Iran had put forward — a proposal similar to the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Under the deal, Iran would “temporarily” halt its enrichment to 3.67% in exchange for access to frozen assets and the ability to export oil. It would not restore IAEA inspections or “end high-level uranium enrichment” until the second stage of the deal, at which point the U.S. would be required to lift some sanctions and prevent the implementation of U.N. snapback sanctions on Iran.

Under the third phase of the proposed deal, Iran would move its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to a third country, while the U.S. would lift all sanctions on Iran. Iran would not be required to curtail its missile program or support for terrorism — which have prompted some of the sanctions in question. Iran is also demanding that Congress approve the deal. 

Iran International reported that Witkoff “welcomed the proposals,” to the surprise of Iranian negotiators. Some in the U.S. have worried that Witkoff, who has delivered mixed messages publicly on the U.S. position, would negotiate a weak deal.

The proposal saw immediate backlash from Iran hawks.

“Terrible proposal. Iran has no reason to enrich ANY uranium. 3.67% enriched is just a few weeks away from weapons grade. And Iran is proposing to only TEMPORARILY limit enrichment to this level,” Fred Fleitz, the vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, a pro-Trump think tank, said. “This is a Iranian cynical ploy to buy time and continue its weaponization program.”

Fleitz served for several months as chief of staff of the National Security Council in Trump’s first administration.

“The regime wants a return to the failed JCPOA, which President Trump rightly rejected. The U.S. response must be firm: dismantle your nuclear program completely and verifiably — or face consequences,” FDD Action, an advocacy group affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said. “Congress must reject any deal that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran, said the proposal is “unserious and should be dead on arrival.”

Israel finds itself in a familiar position this week: Washington is negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran while blocking Israel from striking Iran at what it sees as an opportune time. 

In contrast with a decade ago, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly campaigned against then-President Barack Obama entering the U.S. into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to curb Iran’s nuclear activity, President Donald Trump seems to have Netanyahu boxed in. 

Trump announced the start of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran last Monday in the Oval Office with Netanyahu, who appeared uncomfortable. Israeli sources told Jewish Insider at the time that they knew negotiations between Washington and Tehran were set to begin soon but did not know the date before meeting with Trump. Netanyahu called for a Libya-style deal, meaning the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

Behind closed doors that day, Trump ruled out a U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites until the diplomatic option is exhausted, according to The New York Times. The time to decide on diplomacy or military action is limited, as nearly six months have passed since Israel destroyed Iran’s air defenses, and a mechanism of the 2015 deal to snap back U.N. sanctions on Iran expires in October 2025.

Days later, Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman, the highest level dialogue between the two countries in years. On his return to Washington, Witkoff sent mixed messages about the potential contours of a new nuclear deal. First, he suggested that Iran would be able to continue its uranium enrichment program for civilian purposes, limited to 3.67% enrichment. Critics of the JCPOA, which included similar low-level enrichment, argued that it allowed Iran to maintain a path to a nuclear weapon. The following day, Witkoff walked those comments back, posting on X that a deal would mean that “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

A Trump administration source told JI on condition of anonymity that while the president is firm on not letting Iran have a nuclear weapon, the policy of how to get there is still in flux. Witkoff faithfully represents the president to the extent that he, like the president, will float ideas publicly to see the reaction and adjust accordingly, the source said.

IDF Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told JI that the Trump administration is “speaking generally, not about the details. They understand very well the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.” 

Shira Efron, director of research at the Israel Policy Forum, noted that it is still too early to know what a deal will look like.

“There seem to be divisions within the administration itself,” Efron told JI. “There’s a camp that favors a deal … and really sees China as the main adversary while Iran isn’t a priority. Then there are those more aligned with the Israeli position. We don’t know which way this is going to go.”

That did not allay the concerns of some JCPOA critics that the new deal may recycle what they see as the weaknesses of the old one.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told JI: “There is no right to enrich. It’s a made-up term … The whole premise plays into Iranian hands.”

Oren said that Obama-era CIA Director Bill Burns wrote in his memoirs that the U.S. conceded a “right to enrich” during the first negotiation meeting with Iran in 2013, and expressed concern that Witkoff had done the same in talks with the Islamic Republic in Oman on Saturday.

“Once you have the right to enrich, the negotiation is about how many centrifuges are active — because they won’t dismantle — and what is your cap on low-enriched uranium,” Oren said. “It’s a great deal for the Iranians.”

Kuperwasser said that any deal must “make sure Iran does not have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, not just that it does not have a nuclear weapon. To not have the capability, it cannot be able to enrich uranium, or develop nuclear warheads or nuclear weapons based on uranium or plutonium. There can be no weaponization … The Americans understand that.”

According to Efron, “For Israel, a bad deal would be the worst of all outcomes. A bad deal in 2015 is not like a bad deal would be now. On the one hand, Iran is weaker” — after the Israeli strikes on its air defenses and defeat of its proxies in Lebanon and Syria — “but on the other, its nuclear program is a lot more advanced. The restrictions [in a deal] will have a different utility than they did 10 years ago.”

The Trump administration source said that Witkoff is focused on the nuclear issue in the negotiations and not Iran’s broader malign actions in the Middle East.

Oren expressed concern that, with the money coming in from sanctions relief that would come with a deal, “Iran will rebuild Syria. They’ll find someone to replace [toppled Syrian President Bashar] Assad. They’ll rebuild Hezbollah and Hamas … This is who the Iranians are. No deal will change that.”

Kuperwasser encouraged engagement between Jerusalem and Washington now to prevent a weak deal. He said that “Israel first and foremost must continue its very close communications with the Americans … to ensure that what we don’t want doesn’t happen.” 

Simultaneously, he said, “we have to prepare for joint action so that there is a military option, which will increase the chances of getting what we want diplomatically. Israel and the U.S. have to increase their military capabilities so the Iranians are convinced to accept what they don’t want.”

If the Trump administration reaches an agreement with Iran that Israel views as weak, Jerusalem may have fewer channels to push back against it.

In 2015, when Israel sought to prevent the Obama administration from entering the JCPOA — because it allowed Iran to continue enrichment activity and did not address its ballistic missile program or funding proxies, among other criticisms — Capitol Hill became the main arena of debate. Pro-Israel organizations lobbied members and Netanyahu gave a speech before a joint session of Congress.

In 2025, however, it is less likely that Trump would face such challenges. Democratic members of Congress are unlikely to support a more hawkish policy on Iran, and while some GOP senators have already voiced opposition to a deal allowing Iran to enrich, few Republicans are willing to publicly speak out against the president’s policies. 

“If the deal looks like a warmed-over JCPOA,” Efron said, “it will be the biggest challenge for Israel, because unlike with Obama, Netanyahu cannot go to Congress. I think the tools at Israel’s disposal are going to be much more limited and Israel will have to be much more sophisticated to campaign against a deal.” 

Oren said that “back in 2015, Obama didn’t submit the JCPOA for congressional approval because he knew he wouldn’t get it. President Trump today could be confident that he would.”

The former ambassador suggested that, while “in the past Israel focused its efforts on Congress, today it must focus its efforts on the White House.”

Efron argued that Israel is already doing that, with Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer “directly influencing the hawks on Iran in the White House and State Department, plus the Senate, as evidenced by statements by [Sen. Lindsey] Graham [(R-SC)] and [Sen.] Tom Cotton [(R-AR)].” 

She also suggested that Israel has leaked details of Iranian weapons smuggling to the international media and will work with like-minded organizations and think tanks in Washington.

“This will continue in full force, but there won’t be a direct confrontation with Trump and his policies like there was with Obama,” she said. 

One message Oren suggested that may be effective is to focus on expanding the Abraham Accords: “President Trump wants peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the surest way not to get one is this” — a weak Iran nuclear deal, he said.

The former ambassador also pushed back against what he called “Obama’s line that it’s either diplomacy or war. That is a totally false dichotomy … It’s totally mythic. Iran has no air force, has no ground forces, has zero ability to make war against the U.S. The notion of being afraid of a war is ridiculous.”

As to whether Netanyahu’s public embrace of Trump would make things more difficult for the prime minister to counter a weak Iran nuclear deal, Efron said “it would be hard for any leader to come out against this administration’s policies.”

Efron described the situation as “complicated,” saying that Netanyahu was very influential on Trump’s Iran policy in his first term, when he withdrew from the JCPOA.

At the same time, Netanyahu’s February visit to Washington, in which Trump treated him very well and expressed seriousness about the idea of voluntary migration of Gazans, “bought [Netanyahu] the budget,” referring to the Israeli government’s passage of its budget in March. “It extended the life of his government. He got carte blanche to do what he wanted on all borders … Netanyahu has a personal debt to Trump.”

Though “Netanyahu clearly felt uncomfortable” when Trump announced Iran talks, Efron said, the Israeli leader was “in a bind.” 

“I don’t see a situation in which Iran agrees to follow the Libya model,” she added. “If Israel continues to wish for a maximalist position, it might be left with a bad agreement. Maybe there needs to be a middle ground, something more realistic but doable and politically viable.”

Kuperwasser said it was unlikely that the Trump administration would enter into a deal that is similar to the JCPOA.

“The JCPOA paved the way for Iran to have the capability to develop massive amounts of nuclear weapons, hundreds of warheads,” he said. “I’m certain Trump does not mean for that to happen. He understands that cannot happen, so I don’t think there will be tensions with the Americans like in 2015.”

“It doesn’t mean that there won’t be disagreements at some stages of the agreement,” he added.

However, Kuperwasser argued that the chance of reaching any deal with Iran is slim. “The American demands are so great that it is hard to believe the Iranians will accept them,” he said.

As such, Kuperwasser added, “We need to be ready [for a strike on Iran], maybe with American cooperation. Trump doesn’t want to do it, but maybe he will see that he has to.”

If there is a deal that Israel views as bad, Kuperwasser said, “Israel will have no choice but to accept it. I don’t see Israel preventing an American agreement by attacking Iran.” 

The Trump administration’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who is leading U.S. nuclear talks with Iran, again suggested on Monday that the U.S. is willing to allow Iran to maintain some level of nuclear enrichment, as it did during the original 2015 nuclear deal. But Witkoff appeared to walk back those remarks on Tuesday, saying that the U.S. is demanding that Iran eliminate its enrichment and weaponization programs.

“The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points: One, enrichment. As you mentioned, they do not need to enrich past 3.67%,” Witkoff said on Fox News on Monday. “You do not need to run a civil nuclear program where you’re enriching past 3.67%. This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program. And then ultimately verification on weaponization. That includes missiles.”

Allowing Iran to continue any nuclear enrichment provides Tehran with an easy pathway to a nuclear weapon, critics have argued.

But Witkoff offered a different position on Tuesday in a post on X.

“Any final arrangement must set a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East — meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program,” Witkoff wrote. 

Witkoff’s follow-up post reportedly came around the time of a White House meeting held by President Donald Trump on the nuclear negotiations. The new comments appeared to contradict both his remarks on Fox News and other recent comments that the U.S. would be open to a deal that included verification that Iran is not weaponizing its nuclear program, and that dismantlement was only an opening negotiating position.

Witkoff’s initial comments on Fox set off a wave of concerned reactions from the U.S. and Israel. Some Iran hawks appear concerned that the Trump administration may be headed toward a deal similar to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Analysts seen as more sympathetic to the regime, meanwhile, celebrated the initial remarks.

Following Witkoff’s Tuesday comments, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) decried anyone in Trump’s orbit pushing for a repeat of the 2015 deal.

“Anyone urging Trump to enter into another Obama Iran deal is giving the President terrible advice,” Cruz said. “[Trump] is entirely correct when he says Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nukes. His team should be 100% unified behind that.”

Cruz was responding to a post from conservative commentator Mark Levin expressing deep skepticism of a new deal with Iran. Levin has openly criticized Witkoff’s apparent concessions to the Iranian regime.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) responded similarly to Levin’s post.

“As President Trump said, the only solution is Iran completely dismantling its program, or we should do it for them,” Cotton said. “Those who minimize the risk of this regime are dead wrong. Just look at the hundreds of missiles Iran launched at Israel in the past year, aimed at massacring civilians (including many Americans living in Israel). Imagine how much worse it would be with a nuclear weapon.”

Last week, before talks in Oman began, a group of nine House Republicans led by Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) wrote to the administration standing behind the position that Iran’s nuclear program must be “fully and verifiably dismantled.”

“The JCPOA’s failed sunset provisions, lack of robust verification mechanisms, and allowance for continued centrifuge development have all but ensured Iran’s ability to achieve nuclear breakout within a matter of months,” the lawmakers wrote. “The regime in Iran must understand that there is no situation which allows it to retain a nuclear weapons capability, and there is no scenario in which the United States will accept anything short of its full and permanent disarmament.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett argued on X on Tuesday, before Witkoff’s walk-back, that “the only deal worth making with Iran” would be one that not only completely dismantles its nuclear program but also ends its sponsorship of terrorism and its ballistic missile program.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the US has amassed for itself unprecedented leverage,” Bennett said. “It would be a historic miss to allow Iran to regroup and threaten us—the US, Israel and the rest of the world—again.”

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider he believes Witkoff “wants to return to” the JCPOA and had, in his public comments, “effectively conceded enrichment to the Iranians.”

“His challenge is that he has to come back with a deal that doesn’t look like [the] JCPOA, because then Trump would be embarrassed by having signed a deal that essentially is the same deal he withdrew from in 2018,” Dubowitz said. “Witkoff’s challenge is to figure out how to present [the] JCPOA but to do it in a way that looks like it’s a better deal.”

Dubowitz argued that it’s essentially impossible to implement sufficient safeguards and verification to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear warhead — as Witkoff had appeared to suggest on Fox — “because the Iranians can build a warhead in a laboratory the size of a classroom in a country that’s two-and-a-half times the size of Texas.”

“I think [Witkoff] comes out and makes these comments about enrichment and then congressional Republicans get upset or [National Security Advisor Mike] Waltz and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio push back hard internally, and [Secretary of Defense Pete] Hegseth, and then he comes back and makes his statement today,” Dubowitz said. “He’s kind of going back and forth between conceding enrichment and dismantlement depending on who his audience is.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran, told JI that allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium to 3.67% “would enable” Iran to “extort the United States,” and said that Trump should remain consistent on insisting on full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

Brodsky said that allowing Iran to enrich to 3.67% was the “original sin” of the JCPOA “and that set the table for the situation that we’re in today.”

“We need to learn the lessons of the past,” Brodsky said. “The JCPOA framework failed … It’s a flawed, fundamentally failed framework of dealing with the Iranian issue.”

Brodsky praised one element of Witkoff’s original Fox comments: limits on Iran’s missile program. The lack of provisions relating to the missile program “was one of the flaws of the original JCPOA,” Brodsky said.

“But also there are a lot of other questions regarding sanctions relief and mechanisms to prevent Iran from using sanctions relief … under any deal from funding its malign behavior in the region,” Brodsky continued.

Dubowitz argued that it will ultimately be up to Trump whether to accept a deal along the lines of the JCPOA and “spin it as the greatest deal ever negotiated” in order to bring sufficient congressional support. 

He said he thinks it will be difficult for congressional Republicans to agree to a deal similar to the JCPOA given that many of them rejected that deal in 2015. “The Iran issue, to me, is the exception where Trump cannot have his way … given the congressional investment in this issue over 20 years.”

Dubowitz added that Israel would also need to decide whether and how to publicly oppose such a deal and how to calibrate its military operations, or if it would defer to Trump. He further warned that allowing Iran — and potentially Saudi Arabia — to enrich could set off a worldwide “proliferation cascade.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who also served in senior State Department and Pentagon roles in the Biden administration, told JI that Witkoff’s comments on Fox were “certainly confusing to many audiences — the Iranians, Congress, maybe others in the administration” coming as Witkoff’s first public interview following the talks in Oman.

“It may be that the president is zig-zagging a bit on what he thinks is an acceptable deal, and that means his negotiator has to make adjustments, but it’s probably a mistake to do that in public on a day-to-day basis,” Shapiro said.

Shapiro said he continues to believe it will be difficult to achieve an agreement that would dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. He said he did not think it’s likely that the administration or Congress would agree to a deal that allows continued enrichment, adding that returning to a JCPOA-type scenario would be technically difficult given the advancement in Iran’s nuclear program in the ensuing years.

Shapiro suggested it’s more likely that talks will stall, that snapback sanctions will be imposed and that Iran will respond by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or making a move toward weaponization, which would require the U.S. and Israel to consider a military response.

The former ambassador argued in a recent article that the opportunity is ripe for military action against Iran’s nuclear program. “The timing, need, and opportunity may never be more compelling. And, arguably, a military option is more feasible now than at any time in recent decades,” Shapiro wrote.

Shapiro told JI that, alternatively, the U.S. and Iran could agree to an extension of the snapback deadline to continue talks and/or a “freeze-for-freeze” deal with some sanctions rollback and potentially a reduction in Iran’s nuclear stockpile. “That’s a possible scenario, but even that agreement is going to be very difficult to reach, given how advanced the Iranian program is right now.”

Witkoff’s follow-up comments on Tuesday appeared to ease some concerns in Washington.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been skeptical of efforts to negotiate with Iran, approvingly reposted Witkoff’s later comment, saying, “Completely agree with Special Envoy Witkoff’s statement that any deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program cannot include an enrichment capability because that is how you make a nuclear weapon.”

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) responded to Witkoff’s post saying, “Any deal with Iran must include a complete end to their nuclear program. No exceptions.”

AIPAC in a statement thanked Witkoff “for your insistence that Iran eliminate its enrichment and weaponization programs entirely. Time-bound negotiations must permanently and verifiably dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”

High-level direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran will begin on Saturday, President Donald Trump announced in an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday.

Netanyahu, who has historically expressed skepticism about the possibility of reaching an effective nuclear deal with Iran, raised the topic, saying that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If it can be done diplomatically as it was in Libya, that would be a good thing. But if it can’t, we have to ensure it has no nuclear weapons.” 

In response, the president said: “We are having direct talks with Iran. It’ll go on Saturday.”

Iran, however, has yet to publicly agree to enter direct talks with the U.S.

”I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious,” Trump added, a reference to a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “And the obvious is not something I want to be involved with or frankly, that Israel wants to be involved with if they can avoid it.” 

Trump said Iran’s nuclear program is “getting to be very dangerous territory.” 

Asked the level of the delegation to the nuclear talks, Trump said “high level, very high level … almost the highest level.” He would not say where the talks will take place.

The president’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, said he had no comment when asked by Jewish Insider on Monday if he would be involved in the negotiations on Saturday.

Iranian state media reported on Tuesday that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Witkoff will lead the talks, characterized by Araghchi as “indirect,” in Oman. Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi will reportedly serve as the mediator.

The president acknowledged that it’s “a possibility” that Iran is trying to buy time and does not plan to seriously negotiate.

“I think if the talks aren’t successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger, and I hate to say it. Great danger,” he said. “Because they can’t have a nuclear weapon. You know, it’s not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, that’s all there is.”

However, Trump stopped short of threatening to bomb Iran, as he did last week.

The president said that if he makes a deal with Iran, “it’ll be different and maybe a lot stronger” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortagus said in an interview with Al Arabiya that “what we’re not going to do is get into the Biden trap where you do indirect talks that last for years and the Iranians just string us along. Not happening in this administration.”

“If we’re going to have talks, they need to be quick, they need to be serious about dismantling their nuclear weapons program,” she said. “President Trump wants a peaceful future for both countries, but we’re not going to be extorted like the Biden administration was.” 

Ortagus noted that the U.N. Security Council Resolution underpinning the JCPOA, which would allow parties to the deal to snap back all pre-deal sanctions on Iran, expires in October, and that there have long been grounds to bring back those sanctions, because Iran has been violating the terms of the agreement since 2021.

This story was updated at 4 a.m. ET

Iran and global terrorist organizations, including ISIS, plan to target Jews and Israelis traveling during Passover, Israel’s National Security Council warned on Tuesday.

“Iran is the central generator of global terror, directly or through its proxies, against Israeli and Jewish sites around the world,” the National Security Council said in a statement released before Israeli schools go on Passover break on Sunday. 

The Islamic Republic uses terror attacks as a policy and seeks to avenge the deaths of senior Hezbollah and Hamas officials, according to the travel warning.

In the last year, Iran has backed attempted terrorist attacks against the Israeli embassies in Sweden and Belgium, which were thwarted, as well as attempts to attack or abduct Israeli citizens around the world under the guise of making business contacts. Those attempts mostly began through e-mails and messages on social media.

Hamas has also attempted to attack Jews and Israelis outside of Israel, in light of the terror group’s weakened state in Gaza and the continuation of the war, the NSC stated. Hamas terror infrastructure was found in Denmark, Germany, Bulgaria and Sweden that aimed to attack Israelis.

In addition, in recent months, terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaida have increased their activities, especially in Europe. ISIS specifically has called on its supporters to strike Israeli and Jewish sites around the world.

The NSC said that “with the collapse of the ceasefire [last month] and the return to fighting in Gaza, an increase is expected in efforts to attack Jewish and Israeli sites abroad, including through local or individual initiatives.”

In addition, there continues to be a high-level threat in Egypt’s Sinai desert, where the beaches were once a popular travel destination for Israeli tourists.

The NSC also warned of possible hate crimes against Jews around the world, which have drastically increased since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.

Canada and Australia were singled out as potentially dangerous due to spikes in antisemitic attacks, including the burning of a Jewish preschool and a synagogue in Sydney, and the throwing of Molotov cocktails and shootings at Jewish schools and synagogues in Montreal and Toronto.

“The bottom line is that there remains a high motivation and activity of different terrorist factors to advance terrorist attacks against Israelis and Jews around the world,” the NSC statement reads. “An atmosphere of hate in many countries against Israel and Jews in light of the war continues to increase the motivation for individuals and independent cells to attack.” 

The NSC recommended that Israelis be cautious when they travel and check their recommendations before buying tickets to go abroad.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he would work to support President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon during his confirmation hearing to be U.S. ambassador to Israel on Tuesday, saying that he believes “it is better to bankrupt them than it is to bomb them.”

Huckabee made the comments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after being asked by Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) if he agreed with the president that Iran must be prevented from having a nuclear weapon, pointing to reports that Trump told Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a recent letter on restarting nuclear talks that the Iranian leader would have two months to reach an agreement “or risk severe consequences.”

“I absolutely believe that the president is taking the right course of action. He did it in his first term. The maximum pressure bankrupted the Iranians. It made it impossible for them to fund the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas. They didn’t have the money,” Huckabee said. 

“When his term ended and President Biden took office, unfortunately they relaxed some of those pressures and the result was Iran had money again. They didn’t use it to help their people, they used it to murder people in Israel through the Houthis, through Hezbollah and through Hamas. I’m grateful to serve a president who recognizes that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and that it is better to bankrupt them than it is to bomb them.”

The former governor received a chilly reaction from Democrats on the committee, who pressed him over his past expressions of support for Israeli annexation of the West Bank and opposition to a Palestinian state. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), pressed Huckabee on how he reconciled his opposition to a two-state solution when the Saudis have conditioned any normalization deal with Israel on Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state. 

Huckabee said a “cultural shift” was necessary on the Palestinian side to allow for lasting peace in the region. 

“To see people who are raised up with an irrational hatred toward Jewish people, that cannot lead to any level of peaceful coexistence, whether it’s here, there or anywhere else on the planet,” Huckabee told Rosen.  

“There can be no peace and two-state solution if there continues to be education from the time a child is five and six years old, living under the Palestinian Authority that says it’s OK, in fact, it’s desirable to murder Jews and to reward them for it.”

Asked again about expanding the Abraham Accords without a commitment from Israel to support a two-state solution, Huckabee replied that this would occur “through the long process of seeing the culture change.”

“There has to be an admission that Israel has a right to exist. There has to be some recognition that there will be a change in the policy of educating children to hate Jews. That does not lead toward a peaceful coexistence anywhere at any time,” he said. 

"We're seeing the results of that antisemitism here in our homeland, which is very distressing to me… To see people who are raised up with an irrational toward Jewish people. And that cannot lead to any level of peaceful coexistence, whether it's here, there or anywhere else on… pic.twitter.com/RFeRqUY8CS

— Jewish Insider (@J_Insider) March 25, 2025

Rosen acknowledged that Huckabee “care[s] deeply about the bonds between the United States and Israel. I have no doubt that if confirmed, you will work tirelessly to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship, meet Israel’s defense needs and free all the remaining hostages held by Hamas.” 

The Nevada senator added that she was concerned, though, about his willingness to work toward maintaining bipartisan support for Israel in Congress and “encourage steps that could one day lead to a durable, lasting peace in the region, that finally provides Israel with long-term security.” 

“To have any chance of achieving what I just laid out, Israel cannot turn into a partisan football here on Capitol Hill,” Rosen said. 

Huckabee vowed, in response, to maintain equal lines of communication with Democratic and Republican offices. 

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) told Huckabee that he believed his top priority as ambassador needed to be getting the remaining hostages home, pointing to New Jersey native Edan Alexander being the last remaining American in Hamas captivity. Asked by Booker what Huckabee thought he could do in his role to help facilitate his constituent’s release, Huckabee replied that getting Alexander home “has to be the first item of business before anything else.”

Multiple Democrats on the committee pressed Huckabee on his long-standing support for Israeli settlement annexation, with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) calling him a “big hero of the Jewish settler movement on the West Bank.” While Huckabee acknowledged that he remains a supporter of annexation efforts, he noted that he recognized his role would not be to create policy but to enforce it. 

“If confirmed, it’ll be my duty to carry out the president’s policies, not mine. One of the things that I will recognize — an ambassador doesn’t create the policy, he carries the policy of his country and his president,” Huckabee said in response to a question from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). “I have previously supported it, Judea and Samaria, but it would not be my prerogative to make that the policy of the president.”

Asked by Merkley if he was supportive of forcibly displacing Palestinians from Gaza, Huckabee said no. 

Huckabee acknowledged the concerns of Democrats in his opening statement, telling the panel, “I have no illusion that everyone on this committee agrees with President Trump’s policies or his choices for roles in his administration. It is simply my hope that we will be able to engage in a meaningful discussion. I am not here to articulate or defend my own views or policies, but to present myself as one who will respect and represent the president.”

The former governor received a more receptive tone from committee Republicans, who engaged with Huckabee on his long-standing support for Israel. 

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) praised Huckabee in introductory remarks as “the right person to be our representative to Israel at this critical moment, and I’m thankful to President Trump for selecting such a staunch and passionate advocate for the Jewish state.”

“Mike is not only qualified to serve as our ambassador to Israel, but he is uniquely suited for this role given the way he has championed Israel throughout his entire life, including as a steadfast supporter of Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.”

Asked by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) to share “how important it is to you that the United States stand arm-in-arm with Israel and not show any daylight between ourselves and our ally,” Huckabee replied: “Right now, Israel needs an ally and the Jewish people need to know that they have friends. And I am proud to have the right, as a Christian, to say to the Jews: You are not alone. We will not walk behind you but alongside you.”

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Tuesday that the intelligence community maintains its assessment from prior years that Iran is not currently actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, but that open discussion of nuclearization has increased inside the regime.

“The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,” Gabbard said in her opening remarks at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

But, Gabbard added, “In the past year, we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus. Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”

Gabbard also said that the full impacts of renewed sanctions on Iran are not yet in effect, but that the “message … is certainly heard.”

The intelligence community’s annual threat assessment, released in conjunction with the hearing, predicts that Iran will continue efforts to threaten U.S. citizens globally and develop networks and conduct operations inside the United States.

It also describes Iran’s military capabilities and proxy armies as an ongoing threat to the U.S. and its allies, despite Israeli successes in degrading those capabilities.

“The IC assesses Iran’s prospects for reconstituting force losses and posing a credible deterrent, particularly to Israeli actions, are dim in the near-term,” the report continues.

The report suggests that Iranian political and economic struggles could be fodder for renewed domestic political unrest and protest inside Iran, unless Iran is granted sanctions relief.

The intelligence community also assessed that Hamas is a continued threat to Israeli security and is “capable of resuming a low-level guerilla resistance and to remain the dominant political action in Gaza for the foreseeable future.” It notes that Hamas’ popularity in Gaza has decreased but it remains popular in the West Bank.

The report warns that resumed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah would “threaten Lebanon’s fragile stability” and could prompt a range of negative outcomes inside Lebanon.

It also states that Syria could again devolve into violence, and that even if the new government is able to form a durable coalition across the various ethnic and sectarian groups, “governing Syria will remain a daunting challenge amid the country’s economic problems, humanitarian needs driven in part by millions of internally displaced Syrians, rampant insecurity, as well as ethnic, sectarian, and religious cleavages.”

Protesters affiliated with the far-left group Code Pink disrupted the hearing to advocate against U.S. support for Israel. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the committee chair, citing reports of Chinese funding to the group, said that its activism against Israel reflects the coordination among U.S. adversaries.

In a series of heated exchanges, Democratic lawmakers repeatedly pressed the intelligence community leaders about the recent revelation that U.S. officials had discussed plans for U.S. strikes on the Houthis in Yemen on a commercial messaging app in a group chat that inadvertently included a reporter.

Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who were members of the chat, provided a series of largely evasive and sometimes inconsistent responses on the situation. They at points denied that classified information had been shared in the chat, while at other times said they did not recall details of what had been discussed and suggested that only Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth could say whether the information involved had been classified. 

Multiple Republican senators indicated they also had concerns about the revelations, but planned to question the officials about them in a subsequent classified session.

The threat assessment report released Tuesday did not include a section on the threats from transnational racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists — a category that includes violent white supremacists — which intelligence officials in the previous administration had characterized as a major threat.

President Donald Trump said he sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader this week expressing interest in negotiating a nuclear deal amid growing concerns the Islamic Republic could develop nuclear capabilities in the near future.

“I said I hope you’re going to negotiate, because it’s going to be a lot better for Iran,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network that aired on Friday. “I think they want to get that letter. The other alternative is we have to do something, because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump claimed he sent the letter on Wednesday, though Iran’s mission to the United Nations said that the country had not yet received the message, according to Reuters.

“There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” Trump said of his approach to the regime. “I would prefer to make a deal, because I’m not looking to hurt Iran. They’re great people.”

“I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me,” he added.

Last month, Trump pledged to negotiate what he called a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Iran, hours after his administration moved to reimpose its maximum pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic, including harsh sanctions on oil exports.

Trump has sent mixed signals about his approach to Iran. In his first term, he withdrew from the nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration in 2015 — dismissing it as a “horrible, one-sided” agreement “that should have never, ever been made.”

But he has more recently demonstrated interest in renewing discussions with Iran as he continues to upend U.S. foreign policy while engaging directly with Hamas and pursuing diplomacy with Russia, which has offered to help mediate negotiations with Iran.

The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, which fiercely opposed the Obama administration’s efforts to broker a deal with Iran, said that it was receptive to Trump’s desire to renew outreach to the Islamic Republic.

“We strongly support the Trump administration’s demand that Iran verifiably give up its nuclear weapons program,” Marshall Wittmann, an AIPAC spokesperson, told Jewish Insider. “The president’s swift implementation of maximum economic pressure, coupled with the threat of military action and support for our ally Israel, is essential to create the conditions for timebound negotiations to try to achieve a deal that permanently and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Wittmann urged “Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work with the administration to further enforce sanctions, strengthen our ally Israel, and reaffirm that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is a national security priority.”

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank who specializes in Iran, said Trump’s letter “shows that the president really is considering all options, and is yet another indicator of his seriousness for a diplomatic resolution.”

But, he warned, “it takes two to tango,” noting that Iran “has not amassed all this atomic infrastructure and know-how to merely trade it away at the right time.”

“Rather than take to letter writing and emulating the failed outreach of his predecessors,” Ben Taleblu told JI, “Trump would be wise to marry his own successful policy to maximum pressure against the regime in Iran with maximum support for the people in Iran to box in and challenge the very same regime which has tried to kill him.”

Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, also advised caution on pursuing negotiations. Even as he praised Trump’s “strong support for Israel and tough posture on Iran,” Makovsky said it is “dangerous to U.S. interests to enter talks with Iran at this late stage, and the U.S. could be walking into quicksand.”

“As recent decades prove, Iran will try to drag out talks while they advance their nuclear program, which has already reached a very dangerous and critical level,” Makovsky told JI, adding that JINSA had recently recommended a range of steps Trump should take if he moves forward with negotiations.

Trump “needs to state the goal of” such nuclear talks “is an agreement, requiring Senate ratification, to completely, permanently and transparently dismantle Iran’s nuclear program,” Makovsky said.

In comments on Friday, Trump reiterated his hope to negotiate a renewed nuclear agreement with Iran. 

“There will be some interesting days ahead with Iran,” he said. “We are down to final strokes with Iran. We are down to the final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem.”

Iran is attempting to avoid direct state-on-state conflict with the U.S. pending the outcome of the nuclear negotiations, General Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing on Thursday.

McKenzie said that Iran is avoiding direct confrontation with the U.S. while continuing deniable activities through proxies with the goal of forcing the U.S. out of nations like Iraq.

“They are prepared to [conduct attacks], which they believe they can disavow by their actors, their proxies acting on the ground, to conduct low-level attacks against us,” McKenzie asserted. “Over the last year in 2020, the Iranians believed they had a political solution to eject us from Iraq. That no longer appears to be a viable way ahead for them. So we’re seeing a return to a more kinetic approach.”

McKenzie also affirmed the Israeli military’s assessment that a Syrian missile attack on Israel on Wednesday was likely unintentional, and is not a sign of a broader Syrian campaign of direct attacks on Israel. 

The incident, he said, appeared to have been an attempt by Syrian air defense forces to shoot down Israeli aircraft striking locations in Syria, but the missile missed its target and continued into Israel. It exploded in southern Israel near the site of Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona.

“I think it reflects incompetence in Syrian air defense,” McKenzie explained. “I do not believe it was an intentional attack, but just rather a lack of capability on the part of the Syrian air defenders.”

McKenzie added that he expects Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region to remain secure, downplaying concerns about U.S. arms sales to other Middle Eastern nations.

“I am confident that we will be able to preserve Israel’s QME going forward, even considering arms sales to the various countries across the region,” he said. “And we should also reflect that the arms sales across the region at least partially reflects the increasing normalization of ties between Israel and those nations.”

McKenzie spoke on the issue at a House Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this week, noting that arms sales to countries such as the United Arab Emirates are a key part of the U.S. strategy for deterring Iran.

At that hearing, McKenzie also emphasized the threat of Iranian drones to U.S. forces and allies, which he said the U.S. is not yet fully equipped to counter.

Robert Malley has reportedly been chosen as the Biden administration’s envoy to Iran, confirming a report from Jewish Insider last week that the former Obama administration official was under consideration for the role. Malley, a veteran foreign policy analyst who is currently the president and CEO of the International Crisis Group, was one of the key negotiators of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

“Secretary Blinken is building a dedicated team, drawing from clear-eyed experts with a diversity of views. Leading that team as our special envoy for Iran will be Rob Malley, who brings to the position a track record of success negotiating constraints on Iran’s nuclear program,” a senior State Department official told Reuters. “The secretary is confident he and his team will be able to do that once again.”

The New York Times cited a senior State Department official who said that Malley and other diplomats’ first step, before approaching Iran, will be to consult with leaders in the Middle East, Europe and Congress to hear their concerns. 

Over the past week, a number of prominent progressive Democrats coalesced behind Malley, while Republicans and some moderate Democrats criticized him for his close relationships with Iranian leaders and for meeting with members of Hamas — which cost him his role as an advisor to President Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

“You can’t do better than Rob Malley,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Jewish Insider on Wednesday. “He knows the region. He’s willing to think outside of the foreign policy consensus. He has a lot of friends on the Hill. Whatever Rob Malley is being considered for, I’d be supportive. I’ve relied on him a lot during my time in the Senate.”

Other Senate Democrats are more skeptical about the pick, two Democratic congressional staffers told JI.

“Malley would be an odd choice. I say so since our ability to navigate the Iran issue from Congress will be largely dependent on the administration’s willingness to consult about their approach/decisions,” one aide said. “While some Republicans are already struggling to outflank each other from the right on anything Biden does, having an envoy that is viewed as moderate and restrained would be to everyone’s advantage.”

One Democratic senate staffer said that moderates are hesitant to speak out the pick publicly, despite some reservations.

“The consensus is that the criticism isn’t totally off-base but is a little overblown, so folks aren’t going to pile on,” the staffer said. “At the same time, he’s disliked enough in pro-Israel circles that it isn’t worth it to make a nuanced case about the criticism. It’s not like anyone truly loves this guy, either. And at the end of the day, [President Joe] Biden and [Secretary of State Tony] Blinken are in charge and we trust them.”

Moderate Senate Democrats were, at least publicly, remaining quiet about Malley ahead of Thursday’s news. A spokesperson for incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) — who expressed skepticism about the Biden administration’s plans to rejoin the Iran deal — declined to comment to JI on Wednesday. 

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) — who opposed the Iran deal in 2015 — declined to comment Thursday and told JI that he needed to refresh his recollection of Malley’s background. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told JI on Wednesday that he felt it was premature to comment on reports that Malley had been offered the position, adding that he planned to review reporting about Malley that afternoon. A spokesperson for Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) also declined to comment.

Outside Congress, progressive leaders and groups rallied around Malley following backlash over reports that he was likely to become the administration’s point person on Iran. Nearly 200 academics, foreign policy professionals, organizations and others released a letter supporting Malley, describing him as “among the most respected foreign policy experts in the United States” and “an astute analyst and accomplished diplomat.”

“Those who accuse Malley of sympathy for the Islamic Republic have no grasp of — or no interest in — true diplomacy, which requires a level-headed understanding of the other side’s motivations and knowledge that can only be acquired through dialogue,” the letter continues. “As veterans of diplomacy and human rights work, and organizations that support the same, we hope that someone as capable and knowledgeable as Rob Malley is put in charge of fixing our broken policy towards Iran.”

This post was updated at 4:55 p.m. on 1/31/2021.

As the Biden-Harris transition team begins to build out its incoming administration and speak with foreign leaders, Israeli political observers caution that an immediate return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran — while renegotiating the agreement’s terms — could put the Biden administration and the Israeli government on a collision course. 

“I believe that on most issues, we will be able to work with the new administration. But I think the key question is the Iranian issue,” former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon said in an interview with Jewish Insider. “This is a crucial issue for Israel. We heard Joe Biden speak about re-entering the JCPOA with some amendments. And the question is how it will look at the end. If the U.S. returns to an agreement that will be similar to the [previous] agreement, it means that Israel will have to recalculate its approach regarding Iran.” 

Danon suggested that if a new Iran deal were to have the same outcome, just “with different titles,” Israel would be obligated to oppose the deal and “take the necessary steps to ensure Iran will never obtain nuclear capabilities.” 

The former Israeli diplomat, who is a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, said that Israel will have to “carefully” examine the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and engagement with international organizations as it shifts away from President Donald Trump’s policies. Danon, who represented Israel at the U.N. during the last year of former President Barack Obama’s second term and for most of Trump’s time in office, said that while he expects some changes to Israel’s standing at the U.N. — especially if the new administration rejoins the Human Rights Council and reinstates currently frozen U.S. funds to the U.N. body that supports Palestinian refugees — “I think we will still have the support of the U.S., but it will require more effort from our side.” 

Danon added that if Biden is “supportive of Israel, he will gain the trust and support of Israelis very fast.” 

Israeli author Yossi Klein Halevi suggested that the two sides will “inevitably come into conflict” over the Iranian issue, predicting a “tough fight” for Israel to keep the U.S. from returning to the terms of the 2015 deal. 

“The Palestinian issue is not going to cause a major rupture between Israel and America,” explained Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. “Biden isn’t Obama. He’s not going to go to war for a two-state solution. He is a seasoned enough politician to understand what Obama did not understand, which is that you don’t go for broke on an issue that you don’t have sufficient leverage on for both sides.” 

But on the Iranian threat, he argued, Israel has more leverage than it had in 2015. In the wake of the recently signed normalization agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, Klein Halevi suggested, Israel now has “a shared strategic structure to confront the international community.” 

On Tuesday, Netanyahu pushed back against the notion that strained ties between Israel and the Democratic Party in recent years would undercut a good working relationship with the Biden administration. “What I see before my eyes is not Democrats and not Republicans. It is just the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said during a speech at the Knesset. “I am committed to stand behind the interests that are crucial to our future and our existence and this is how I will continue even with the next American administration.”

In his remarks, Netanyahu pointed to his decades-long relationship with Biden and the personal moments they shared “that are beyond politics and beyond diplomacy.”

The Israeli premier said that over the last four years, he has met with 134 Democratic members of Congress — of the 292 who have visited Israel since 2017 — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), as well as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. Netanyahu said the meetings occurred “because I believe that strengthening the bipartisan support for Israel is a basic foundation of our foreign policy.” 

Netanyahu noted that even amid tension with the Obama administration, Israel and the U.S. signed a record $38 billion memorandum of understanding of security assistance. “That’s how a prime minister in Israel must act,” he said. “Not by submitting or groveling and also not arrogantly but with the wisdom, courage, dignity of a person who fights for his people, for his land and for his country.”

Shimrit Meir, an Israeli analyst and commentator, told JI that Netanyahu’s defense “was mainly about domestic politics at the moment.” According to Meir, Netanyahu needs to position himself as “a strong experienced prime minister” who is able to handle relations with the U.S. regardless of which party controls the White House. 

Meir noted that while Netanyahu speaks perfect English, “I don’t think he speaks their language.” 

Klein Halevi concurred: “Bibi has burned most bridges with the Democrats.”

In a new book looking back at his time in the military and in several presidential administrations, former national security advisor H.R. McMaster expounds on what he thought were “fundamental flaws” in the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and why he tried to persuade President Donald Trump not to withdraw from the deal. 

In Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World, released on Tuesday, McMaster called the original JCPOA negotiated by former President Barack Obama “an extreme case of strategic narcissism based on wishful thinking” that led to “self-delusion and, ultimately the deception of the American people.” 

Yet, when Trump wanted to make good on his campaign promise to leave the deal, McMaster made clear his opposition to withdrawing from the accord. In the book, McMaster explains that he wanted the U.S. to maintain leverage to punish Iran for its behavior on matters unrelated to the Iranian nuclear program and to get the parties in the agreement to fix the deal’s flaws. McMaster said he also wanted to avoid giving Tehran the opportunity to portray itself as a victim. But as he attempted to work on a comprehensive Iran strategy, McMaster wrote, Trump grew “impatient.” 

McMaster details how he intervened in former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s efforts to certify the deal in April 2017, and how he successfully lobbied the president to recertify the agreement over the next two 90-day deadlines as required under the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. “We had created a window of opportunity for our allies to demonstrate the viability of staying in the deal while imposing costs on Iran,” McMaster writes. “That window closed soon after I departed the White House.” A month after McMaster left the administration, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the deal. 

The former national security official accuses the Obama administration of ignoring Iran’s behavior in the region and avoiding confrontation in an effort to preserve the accord. According to McMaster, Obama officials “focused on selling the deal rather than subjecting it to scrutiny” by using a “red herring” talking point — the Iraq War — to pose “the false dilemma” of either supporting the deal or going to war with Iran. 

McMaster also offers his view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Trump peace plan announced in early 2020. Trump’s moves on Israel, he writes, “communicated support for Israel, but also removed incentives that might have been crucial in a future agreement.” While he described the rollout of the peace plan as “dead on arrival” due to lack of participation from Palestinian leaders, McMaster posits that the plan itself may at some point “help resurrect the possibility of a two-state solution.” 

The book itself is not a tell-all on the Trump administration. McMaster does not write about being excluded from Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the president’s trip to Israel, or his disputes with Trump and Jared Kushner. “This is not the book that most people wanted me to write… a tell-all about my experience in the White House to confirm their opinions of Donald Trump,” McMaster writes in his preface. “Although writing such a book might be lucrative, I did not believe that it would be useful or satisfactory for most readers.”

McMaster accuses the Russians and the alt-right movement of leading a campaign against him, under the hashtag #FireMcMaster, because they viewed him as a threat to their agenda of undermining America’s national security. McMaster writes that the attacks against him were “often inconsistent” in nature. “For example, one caricature on social media portrayed me as a puppet of billionaire George Soros and the Rothschild family (both of whom were frequent targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories), while articles in the pseudo-media charged me and others on the NSC staff as being ‘anti-Israel’ and soft on Iran,” McMaster recalls.