Tensions are running high across the Middle East after a week in which the U.S. and Iran lobbed threats at each other, dominating headlines, destabilizing markets and leaving many in the region unnerved at the prospect of renewed military action seven months after the 12-day war between Israel and Iran that included U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

On the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, yesterday, Trump warned that an “armada” was on its way to the Gulf — a reference to the aircraft carrier and fleet of fighter jets being redeployed from the South China Sea.

In response, Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, the head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warned that Iran had its “finger on the trigger, more prepared than ever, ready to carry out the orders and measures of the supreme commander-in-chief.”  

Trump, true to form, has been unpredictable and inconsistent in his approach to Tehran — alternating between threatening force and teasing diplomacy. “Iran does want to talk, and we’ll talk,” Trump said at a signing ceremony in Davos on Thursday, just hours before he told reporters on Air Force One about the naval deployment to the Gulf. “We have a massive fleet heading in that direction, and maybe we won’t have to use it,” he said on AF1, managing in one whiplash-inducing sentence to lob a threat at Iran while also offering it a theoretical off-ramp.

The president has proven that he is willing to engage in bold action — especially when it comes to Iran. One has only to look to the 2020 killing of Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani or the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June to see that the Trump administration is willing to engage militarily with Iran in ways prior administrations may have not. (Case in point: former President Joe Biden’s issuance in April 2024 of a one-word warning to Iran — “Don’t” — a day before Tehran launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel.)

More recently, the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro demonstrates that the Trump administration isn’t opposed to regime change. And indeed, that was a possibility the president has mulled vis-a-vis Tehran, telling Politico last weekend that it was “time to look for new leadership in Iran.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s inner circle and key allies are split over how to approach Iran. White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has been a vocal backer of using diplomacy to quell tensions with Tehran.

“Iran needs to change its ways,” Witkoff told Bloomberg on Wednesday in Davos. “They need to do that. And if they do, if they indicate that they’re willing to do that, I think we can diplomatically settle this.”

Witkoff additionally expressed disappointment that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had been removed from the agenda at Davos after quietly being added last week, saying he had been “looking forward to meeting [Araghchi], because we have to build that communication channel, because the alternative to that is not a good alternative.”

Hours after Witkoff’s comments, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) posted a thinly veiled reference to the White House envoy, saying he was “unnerved by statements being made by people involved in the Iran file suggesting that if the ayatollah could change his ways, we might be able to reach an agreement with the regime.”

“Anyone who believes that the ayatollah is remotely interested in changing his ways does not understand the history of the ayatollah and the murderous regime,” Graham continued. “That’s the same as believing someone could have done a deal with Hitler.”

Within Iran, there are still hopes that U.S. action will topple Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Economist notes a joke making the rounds among Iranian civil servants: “We used to worry we’d become Venezuela. Now we worry we won’t.”

Heading into the weekend with tensions still high, those who have to live with the consequences of the continuation of the Iranian regime — from the Iranians who have faced years of repression to the Israelis preparing their bomb shelters for the next war to people across the region whose lives have been upended by Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Gaza — will be watching closely for any signal from Trump and his top advisors about Washington’s next moves, and their reverberations around the world.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he hopes no military action will be needed in Iran, but stopped short of ruling it out as the U.S. continues to move military assets to the Middle East.

“We hope there’s not going to be further [military] action,” Trump said during an interview with CNBC on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, while alluding to the fact that it still might be a possibility given Tehran’s conduct in suppressing nationwide demonstrations. “But you know, [the regime is] shooting people indiscriminately in the streets.”

The president has previously called the Iranian regime’s killing of protesters a “red line” and vowed to protesters that “help is on its way.” Trump repeated his claim on Wednesday that Iranian authorities had planned to hang 837 protesters last week, but “canceled it” after he warned them not to.

Trump has thus far refrained from authorizing military action against Iran — even as the U.S. has continued to move military assets to the Middle East in preparation for potential escalation, with reports indicating that the Pentagon has relocated more F-15 fighter jets to the region in recent days. 

When asked by CNBC’s Joe Kernen whether people should “stay tuned” on Iran, Trump was noncommittal: “I guess — I mean, look, it’s a rough place,” he said.

White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, also at Davos, told Bloomberg News that diplomatic engagement remains possible if Tehran changes course.

“Iran needs to change its ways,” Witkoff said. “If they indicate that they’re willing to do that, I think we can diplomatically settle this.” But asked if he believes Iran wants to take the diplomatic path, Witkoff said, “We don’t have that sense yet.”

Still, the president noted that if Tehran were to continue pursuing nuclear capabilities, an attack similar to the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last June is “going to happen again.” 

“They keep experimenting with nuclear, and, you know, at some point they’re going to get the idea that they can’t do that,” he said.

A bipartisan group of 59 House lawmakers sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday urging the State Department to continue condemning Iran’s crackdown on protesters across the country. 

The letter, led by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), encourages the Trump administration to remain vocally supportive of the protesters amid “the Iranian regime’s ongoing violent suppression of protests across Iran.” The lawmakers urged Rubio to continue speaking out and ensure “whole-of-government support” from the U.S. is presented publicly to Iranians.

“The Iranian people have made clear their demand for a secular, democratic, non-nuclear republic grounded in political pluralism and respect for human dignity,” the letter reads. “Protesters have also explicitly rejected all forms of authoritarian rule, whether Iran’s former monarchy dictatorship or its current theocratic system, and seek the right to determine their own future. Recent international reactions against the regime’s brutalities underscore the urgent global concern over continued violence against civilians and abuses of power in Iran.”

“We urge the Department of State to continue publicly condemning the Iranian regime’s violent repression of protesters, including attacks on hospitals and medical facilities,” it continues. “At this critical juncture, whole-of-government support is essential to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to universal human rights and solidarity with the Iranian people.”

The lawmakers also noted their “deep concern” about the ongoing crackdown against protesters.

“Credible reports indicate the use of lethal force, mass arrests, and intimidation against civilians exercising their fundamental rights,” they wrote. “We are particularly alarmed by reports that Iranian authorities have targeted civilian sites, including hospitals and medical facilities, denying injured protesters access to urgent medical care. Such actions constitute violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.”

Weber’s letter was cosigned by Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE), Andy Barr (R-KY), Austin Scott (R-GA), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Brian Babin (R-TX), James Walkinshaw (D-VA), Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), William Timmons (R-SC), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), Pete Stauber (R-MN), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Maria Salazar (R-FL), John Rutherford (R-FL), Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Zach Nunn (R-IA), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Carol Miller (R-WV), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Laurel Lee (R-FL), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Nick Langworthy (R-NY), Nick LaLota (R-NY), Tom Kean (R-NJ), Jeff Hurd (R-CO), Val Hoyle (D-OR), Andy Harris (R-MD), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Michael Guest (R-MS), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), Laura Friedman (D-CA), Scott Franklin (R-FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), Randy Fine (R-FL), Randy Feenstra (R-IA), Jake Ellzey (R-TX), Danny Davis (D-IL), Jeff Crank (R-CO), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Herbert Conaway (D-NJ), Mike Carey (R-OH), Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Mike Bost (R-IL), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Aaron Bean (R-FL), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Mark Amodei (R-NV) and Rick Allen (R-GA).

“The Iranian people have made it unmistakably clear that they reject this regime and the system of repression it has imposed on them,” Weber said in a statement on the letter. “From mass arrests to targeting hospitals, the regime has shown it will use any means to silence political dissent. The United States must continue to condemn these abuses and stand with the Iranian people as they demand the right to determine their own future.”

Even as President Donald Trump backed away from taking immediate military action against Iran, several leading foreign policy analysts believe a U.S. strike against the Islamic Republic remains a possibility, arguing that the administration may be deliberately keeping Tehran off balance and preserving its military options.

Trump appeared to ease off on striking Iran after being advised by administration officials that a large-scale attack is unlikely to bring about regime change and could instead trigger a broader regional conflict, and hearing concerns from allies — including Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia — who have urged him not to carry out military action. U.S. officials said Washington is now monitoring to see whether Tehran is backing down from its violent crackdowns against protesters before determining whether to act.

“Even though Trump did not direct strikes on Wednesday, he is keeping options open,” said Dana Stroul, the research director at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, pointing to the administration’s decision to reposition the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East. “The buildup of military posture in the region over the coming weeks keeps plenty of military options on the table and maintains pressure on the Iranian regime.”

Stroul said the president appears to be taking additional time to ensure the U.S. is prepared not only to act against Iran, but also to defend regional partners in the event Iran attacks U.S. allies or military bases in the region, in retaliation.

Analysts cautioned that the delay should not be interpreted as a decision against military action altogether. Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Jewish Insider that he believes a strike is still on the table, putting the odds at “60–40 [percent]” in favor of a strike.

“There’s still a very real possibility of a strike,” Miller said. “I don’t see how the president gets out of the box he put himself in,” referring to Trump’s public calls for Iranians to continue protesting and his promise of U.S. assistance. “When an American president emboldens demonstrators and then says ‘We will help you’ without the capacity to really protect them, you have to wonder whether that’s morally conscious.”

Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also noted that Trump’s rhetoric has made the administration’s hesitation striking.

“It’s puzzling and upsetting that President Trump would call on the Iranian people to continue protesting in the midst of gunfire and then wait so long to act,” Stricker said. She suggested the delay could reflect a deliberate effort to gain military or intelligence advantages before a strike.

“I lean more toward a possible deception campaign designed to expose IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] movements and preparations before an actual U.S. attack,” Stricker said, adding that the administration may prefer to wait until additional U.S. naval assets arrive in the region, which she said would “happen in the coming days.”

Other analysts were more skeptical that Trump’s hesitance is a cover for an impending operation. Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Iran envoy in the first Trump administration, said it’s possible the president won’t act at all.

“As of noon today, it seems Trump will not do anything, which is extraordinary after he urged Iranians to protest and seize institutions at the risk of their lives,” Abrams said on Thursday. “It is unconscionable to say ‘Help is on the way’ and then do nothing. I hope the president will change his mind.”

While the Iranian regime has faced unprecedented pressure at home and abroad, Stroul warned that Iranian retaliation could be significant in the event of a strike — potentially another factor in Trump’s hesitation.

“The regime still has substantial missile and cyber capabilities,” she said. In the event of a strike, “the U.S. and Israel would need to prepare for the possibility of a sustained, destructive conflict that could be extremely costly in human life, military platforms and infrastructure.”

Concerns over retaliation have fueled lobbying by Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, urging Trump to avoid military action, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly conveyed a similar message to the president on Wednesday

“Arab governments recognize that the regime in Tehran is destabilized but still dangerous,” Stroul said. “Desperate leaders often take unpredictable, aggressive actions. For a region trying to turn the page after years of conflict, leaders are wary of another escalation that could jeopardize economic and security priorities.”

Even among experts who believe military action remains possible, there is broad agreement that it’s not clear what the consequences of a strike would be or that sustained military engagement would lead to the collapse of the regime.

“Any military strike has to answer the question of how it actually changes the balance between a repressive regime and protesters who have very limited means to push back,” Miller said. “There’s no guarantee that even massive strikes would lead to regime change.”

Miller and Stricker both noted that the administration has also not articulated a clear plan for alternative political leadership in Iran should the regime fall — an issue that complicates any decision to intervene.

“Penalizing the regime enough to support the Iranian people could produce unclear outcomes in terms of who provides order and security afterward,” Stricker said. “At the same time, if Trump ultimately does not act, it will be seen by many Iranians as a historic betrayal — and by U.S. adversaries as weakness.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned on Thursday that he would be “dramatically rethinking” the “nature of” the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states if they “intervened on behalf of Iran to avoid decisive military action” by President Donald Trump against the Iranian regime. 

Graham made the comments in a post Thursday morning on X in response to reports that Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman urged Trump against striking Tehran to avoid disrupting oil markets and sparking broader regional conflict, and without a clear succession plan for regime change. 

The Saudis have also told the Iranians that they would not get involved in a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iran, nor would they allow the U.S. to use their airspace for strikes targeting the regime, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

“All the headlines suggesting that our so-called Arab allies have intervened on behalf of Iran to avoid decisive military action by President Trump are beyond disturbing. The ayatollah’s regime has American blood on its hands. They are slaughtering people in the streets,” Graham wrote on X. “If it is accurate that the Arab response is ‘action is not necessary against Iran’ given this current outrageous slaughter of innocent people, then there will be a dramatic rethinking on my part regarding the nature of the alliances now and in the future.”

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol on Thursday morning, Graham rejected the notion that Trump was reversing course on striking Iran. “There are a lot of headlines out there that are, in my view, not accurate. … President Trump’s resolve is not the question. The question is when we do an operation like this, should it be bigger or smaller? I’m in the camp of bigger.”

“Time will tell. I’m hopeful and optimistic that the [Iranian] regime’s days are numbered,” the South Carolina senator said of what’s to come. 

Graham revealed in a post on X later Thursday that he is on his way to Israel to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “at this crucial time in the history of the Middle East.”

“The goal is to build on the historic opportunities created by President Trump’s unprecedented leadership, to stand up to evil, and to support the people who are sacrificing for freedom,” Graham wrote of the visit. “The Trump-Netanyahu alliance has thus far been one of the strongest partnerships in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and I am hopeful it will pay dividends in the near future.”

“We live in a time of great consequence with the Middle East on the verge of previously unimaginable change,” he added. “Standing together and following through on our commitments only makes us stronger.”

Middle East policy experts argued on Wednesday that the United States should actively intervene in Iran’s unrest — including through cyber measures, economic pressure and potentially military strikes — amid the regime’s crackdown on nationwide protests. The comments were made during a program hosted by Iran International, one of the largest independent Persian-language news outlets in the world.

President Donald Trump has for days issued repeated warnings to the regime that the U.S. is “watching closely” and that Iran would “pay hell” for killing protesters. On Wednesday afternoon, however, the president said he had been notified that the “killing in Iran is stopping” and that Iran would not be conducting executions of protesters, as was expected, and downplayed the severity of protester deaths.

“The first thing I would recommend is that we use our very impressive capabilities to shut down the communication system for the government,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, speaking of a potential retaliation for the regime’s decision to cut internet access to the public. “This will be a huge step.”

Satloff said if that did not work, he would then support subsequent U.S. strikes on Iranian military infrastructure.

“If that first act does not bring about a substantial change in Iranian behavior, then I would target very specifically the barracks and the facilities of the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps],” said Satloff. 

Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former diplomat in the Middle East, argued that any U.S. intervention in Iran should not be a “one-off military strike,” but rather a sustained “campaign” of economic and political pressure. 

Rayburn was tapped by the White House to be assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in February 2025, however, his nomination was ultimately pulled last October. 

“We have to use all of the tools at our disposal,” Rayburn said Wednesday. “There’s no reason not to be fully implementing maximum pressure to pressure the Iranian regime in order to change its behavior.” 

Responding to questions about whether a weak Iranian regime — in the midst of dire economic and political challenges — can survive the protests, Rayburn suggested it is bound to fall, stating that there will be a “day after this Khamenei regime,” referring to Iran’s supreme leader, and that he believes that day will come “sooner rather than later.”

“The Iranian regime is going to collapse at some point in the not-too-distant future,” said Rayburn. “[It] can no longer function as a state. The last function they can perform is to use violence against their own people. That means they are not a sustainable regime.” 

Tehran has threatened to respond to any military action with retaliation against the U.S. and Israel. Satloff said the fall of the regime would be “an enormous strategic gain for Israel,” but noted that Jerusalem is “playing it quiet.” 

“The Israelis have made at least the tactical decision, that since Donald Trump has been out front, that Donald Trump has drawn a line in the sand, let Donald Trump be the key actor right now,” said Satloff. “There is no comparative advantage for Israel to be out in front in any military fashion. Let the United States play this role, the president seems to have embraced it.”

He also cast doubt on the likelihood that Tehran would strike Israel in response to U.S. action. Reports have indicated that Iran and Israel have conveyed reassurances through Russian intermediaries that neither side intends to carry out a preemptive strike.

“If the Iranians make the mistake of retaliating against Israel or Israeli assets, or Jewish assets around the world, there will be a very high price to pay,” said Satloff. 

Analysts also weighed in on reports that Gulf allies have been lobbying the Trump administration to refrain from striking or intervening in Iran, warning that a U.S. intervention could be ineffective and expose them to retaliation. While the analysts acknowledged those concerns, they argued that regional governments would ultimately like to see the regime fall.

“I don’t think there are any major frontline countries in the Gulf region that believe that the Iranian regime is a regime that they can live with indefinitely,” said Rayburn. “We have not seen real restraint from the Arab capitals to either U.S. or Israeli pressure against the Iranian regime. All of those capitals would be better off without the regime.”

Regardless of whether the U.S. intervenes, Satloff emphasized that any outcome is “ultimately an Iranian process and an Iranian decision.”

“This will be their [the Iranian people’s] revolution, if it happens,” said Satloff. “It will not be something that we trigger or engineer, but to help them to be able to assert their own wishes and desires for the future.”

President Donald Trump indicated that his threats to Iran over its use of violence on protesters have had their desired effect, saying on Wednesday afternoon that “the killing in Iran is stopping.”

Speaking to reporters at a bill signing in the Oval Office, Trump said, “We have been notified and pretty strongly — but we’ll find out what that all means — but we were told that the killing in Iran is stopping, it’s stopped, and that there’s no plan for executions. … So I’ve been told that on good authority. We’ll find out about it, I’m sure, if it happens, we’ll all be very upset.”

“They’re not going to have an execution, which a lot of people were talking about for the last couple days. Today was going to be the day of execution,” the president said, referring to at least one protester who was due to be executed by the regime today, his family and human rights groups said. 

Trump later claimed that information was provided to him “by very important sources on the other side, that the killing has stopped and the executions won’t take place. There was supposed to be a lot of executions today and that the executions won’t take place.”

“And we’re going to find out. I mean, I’ll find out after this, you’ll find out, but we’ve been told on good authority. And I hope it’s true. Who knows, right? Who knows,” he said.

Pressed about videos of body bags emerging out of Iran that indicate large-scale killings, Trump downplayed the issue, saying, “People were shooting at them with guns, and they were shooting back. It’s one of those things.”

Asked if this means military action against Iran is now “off the table,” Trump replied, “Well, we’re going to watch and see what the process is. But we were given a very good statement by people who are aware of what’s going on.”

The rhetoric marked a shift for the president, who a day prior had posted on social media a message to “Iranian patriots” who he told to “save the names of the killers and abusers” and that “help is on its way.” Reports indicate Iranian officials had made contact with the Trump administration seeking a diplomatic off-ramp to the escalating tension.

The mass protests across Iran erupted just over two weeks ago — the same day that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Palm Beach, Fla., to meet with President Donald Trump.

The big question as Netanyahu and Trump met was whether the president would give Israel a green light to strike Iran as it reconstituted its ballistic missile program at a pace that raised major concerns in Jerusalem. Trump’s response was a resounding yes, adding that if Iran would start rebuilding its nuclear program, the answer would be yes and “fast.” 

At the same time, Israeli defense figures and officials made it known through the media that Jerusalem’s more immediate worry was that Tehran would misinterpret events and strike Israel first. Netanyahu reportedly told Russian President Vladimir Putin that Israel is not interested in escalating, but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, appeared to reject the overture in a post on X, saying “the malicious enemy is a deceiving liar.” 

But as the demonstrations in Iran grew and the regime’s response grew more and more violent – Iran International reported 12,000 protesters have been killed as of Tuesday morning, while an Iranian official put the death toll at 2,000 – international talk about Israeli airstrikes subsided to near-silence. 

Asked how Israel’s calculation about striking Iranian missile or nuclear sites may have changed in the last two weeks, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov on the “Misgav Mideast Horizons Podcast”: “With the United States threatening to intervene, what would we have to gain from this? Other than providing a pretext for the Iranians to strike back at us. I think we’re operating responsibly, prudently.”

Still, Israelis remain jittery about a second round of war with Iran, to the extent that the IDF’s spokesperson, Brig.-Gen. Effie Defrin, released a statement on Monday evening warning that “in recent days, many rumors have circulated in light of the situation in Iran. …The IDF is prepared defensively and remains on alert for surprise scenarios if required. The protests in Iran are a domestic matter. …We will provide updates if there are any changes. I emphasize: Do not lend a hand to rumors.” 

Hostile actors — like the Hamas-affiliated Palestine Chronicle – misrepresented the Israeli Health Ministry’s distribution on Monday of new emergency preparation instructions incorporating the lessons of June’s 12-day war, as though hospitals were imminently entering emergency mode — even though the ministry’s letter explicitly said there is no need to do so. Other false reports stated that local governments in Israel had opened bomb shelters, leading several municipalities to issue denials. 

Netanyahu said in Sunday’s Cabinet meeting that Israel is “closely monitoring what is happening in Iran. The demonstrations for freedom spread throughout the country. The people of Israel, the whole world, are amazed by the great courage of the citizens of Iran. Israel supports their struggle for freedom and strongly condemns the massacres of innocent civilians. We all hope the Persian people will soon be freed from the yoke of tyranny, and when that day arrives, Israel and Iran will go back to being faithful partners in building a future of prosperity and peace for both nations.”

Yet, hours later, he ordered a media blackout on the topic, silencing Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel and Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli, who have signaled their support for Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah.

Oren said that “Israel has only to gain from” the protests. 

As to accusations from the Iranian regime — as well as American extremist podcasters on the right and left — Oren said: “I think Israel, and I say this very guardedly, has the ability to assist the protesters with communications, with information. … Are we providing them with arms? No, Are we saying we’re going to intervene militarily to help bring down the regime? We’re not saying that, and I think that’s why it was prudent to put the kibosh on those ministers who are flexing their muscles publicly vis-a-vis Iran.”

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran escalated on Sunday as President Donald Trump weighed options for striking Iran amid the regime’s crackdown on protesters, and Tehran threatened to strike U.S. bases in response.

Trump was briefed in recent days on options for sites to strike in Iran, The New York Times reported, after he issued several threats warning that the U.S. could get involved if the Iranian regime attempted to violently suppress the nationwide demonstrations that have racked the country for several weeks. 

The options include nonmilitary sites in Tehran, the Times wrote, as well as a large-scale aerial strike on military targets, The Wall Street Journal reported. Trump has not yet made a decision whether to proceed and no U.S. military action has been taken in preparation thus far, U.S. officials told the Times and the Journal. 

In response to the reports, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, said on Sunday that the country would attack American military bases in the region if the U.S. follows through, and even raised the possibility of a preemptive strike. Ghalibaf also threatened to attack regional shipping lanes and Israel.

Over the last week, Trump has made repeated threats against the Iranian regime that the U.S. was “locked and loaded” and would “rescue” demonstrators if security forces began killing them. Human rights groups say the death toll has reached over 200 as the protests, sparked by a severe economic crisis in the country, have spread, with protesters explicitly calling for regime change.

The president wrote on Truth Social on Saturday that “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before” and that the “USA stands ready to help!!!” 

Trump has floated the possibility of regime change in Iran before. During the country’s June war with Israel, when the U.S. struck nuclear sites inside Iran, Trump wrote on social media that the U.S. knows “exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.” Later, he wrote, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

GOP lawmakers have voiced their support for renewed U.S. strikes on Iran, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sharing a message to Khamenei on Fox News last week: “You need to understand, if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life, Donald J. Trump is gonna kill you.”

The United States, Israel and their regional allies are watching closely as sustained unrest in Iran puts renewed pressure on the regime at a moment of economic strain, international isolation and lingering fallout from the 12-day war with Israel last June.

Recent demonstrations have spread across all 31 of Iran’s provinces, fueled by public anger over a collapsing economy, inflation exceeding 40% and aggressive crackdowns by security forces. Economic pressure — intensified by costly proxy wars and United Nations sanctions — have sent Iran’s currency into a sharp decline.

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said the regime’s “unwillingness to be responsive to its people’s basic demands and rights,” is also a factor. Adding that Tehran has a “clear preference to spend the country’s resources on military projects like its proxies, missiles and nuclear program instead of its citizens’ well-being.”

More than 400 demonstrations took place this week alone, with at least 743 recorded over the past month, according to a tracker from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The death toll has reached at least 38, with more than 2,200 arrests reported. The demonstrations are the largest since April 2025 and among the most sustained since late 2022 as videos continue to circulate online of Iranians flooding the streets, burning regime flags and lighting fire to statues of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ruhe said that uprisings by the Iranian people against the regime are not uncommon. “In 2009 it was political corruption, when the regime clearly stole the presidential election to get [former President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad reelected,” he said. “In 2017-18 it was economic and foreign policy issues, for instance Iranians being killed in the Syrian civil war and the regime’s lavish spending on its proxies instead of at home. In 2022 it was social and cultural issues, namely hijab enforcement.”

But experts say what is unfolding now could be more significant than protests of the past, expressing to Jewish Insider that recent developments could pose an unprecedented challenge to a regime already under strain. 

Behnam Ben Taleblu, the senior director of FDD’s Iran program, called the protests a “nationwide anti-regime uprising,” telling JI that they are reaching a “crescendo” with a “greater demographic and geographic group of Iranians protesting.”

“Protests have rapidly spread due to the shared consensus that the Islamic Republic of Iran is behind the demise of Iran,” said Taleblu, who called the demonstrators “historic and different” given how the Iranian people have “not given up” in the face of crackdowns. “This matters for a regime that is battered and bruised.”

Ruhe also said the protests are “different from past waves,” explaining that the regime is less capable of solving the issues of the Iranian people in the current moment. 

“The economic grievances that triggered the current protests are much more clearly beyond the regime’s ability to fix than they might have been years ago, before the effects of the regime’s corruption and mismanagement had reached the point where the country is running out of electricity and water and its money is absolutely worthless,” said Ruhe. 

The ayatollah’s fears are also likely heightened by the recent U.S. operation in Venezuela that ousted President Nicolás Maduro. The U.S. pursuing similar actions in Iran is unlikely, however, Iranian officials have expressed concerns that their regime in Tehran could be next. President Donald Trump has warned that the U.S. is watching the protests “very closely.” 

In response, the Iranian regime has vowed to crack down against protesters, with Khamenei stating last week that they must be “put in their place.” The regime also appeared to cut off internet access on Thursday. But none of these methods have seemed to quell the unrest, with recent reports suggesting Khamenei could flee Tehran for Moscow if security forces become overwhelmed by protests.

Nadav Eyal wrote that the continued protests could indicate that “fear has shifted sides” from the people of Iran to the regime itself.

“The oppressors are no longer as certain as they once were in using force. They cannot compete with sheer numbers, with masses filling the streets,” Eyal wrote on X. “The Islamic Republic still possesses formidable repressive capacity. Yet the signals — hesitation, mixed messaging, demonstration of fear by cutting internet — suggest a leadership aware that it may no longer be able to rely on obedience.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said on Thursday that he would support the U.S. striking Iran’s nuclear facilities again to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its nuclear program — if the regime is found to be making strides toward restoring sites damaged by U.S. and Israeli strikes last year. 

The Pennsylvania senator told Jewish Insider that he believes the U.S. and Israel should keep targeting Iranian nuclear facilities until Iran’s leaders “get the message” that the Islamic Republic will never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. 

“If Iran restarts their nuclear ambitions, I fully support bombing them until they get the message,” Fetterman told JI.

Fetterman was supportive of President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities amid the 12-day war with Israel last year and has emerged as one of the staunchest Iran hawks in the Democratic Party. He criticized members of his party last June who spoke out against Israel’s strikes on Iran and Trump’s subsequent decision to join the strikes.

“It was just astonishing to see colleagues criticizing these things. It’s like, do you think you can negotiate with that regime? Do you think you want to run that scenario and allow them to acquire 1,000 pounds of weapons grade uranium?” Fetterman told JI at the time. “I can’t understand, I can’t even begin to understand that.”

For his part, the president said late last month while meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he was open to another round of strikes against Iran.

Asked by reporters if he will support another Israeli attack on Iran if it continues its ballistic missile and nuclear programs, Trump said, “If they continue with the missiles? Yes. If the nuclear? Fast, OK? One will be yes, absolutely; the other was, we’ll do it immediately.”

“Iran may be behaving badly,” he added. “It hasn’t been confirmed, but if it’s confirmed, look, they know the consequences.”

Fetterman is the first Democrat in Congress to publicly endorse additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, a move several of his Republican colleagues have also gotten behind. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in Israel last month that Washington had a duty to act on “credible evidence” that Iran is looking for avenues to rebuild its nuclear program. The South Carolina senator argued it was imperative that the U.S. and Israel “hit them before they can” do so. 

“We obliterated the Iranian nuclear facilities. We did not obliterate Iran’s desire to have a nuclear weapon,” Graham said. “The regime hasn’t changed at all. They still want to kill all the Jews, consider America the great Satan, and purify Islam.”

“Are they regenerating their nuclear capability? Are they building more ballistic missiles that could hurt Europe and Israel?” he added. “I don’t know, but there’s evidence that, yes, they are.”

Multiple Senate Republicans voiced support for President Donald Trump’s threat that the U.S. would intervene directly should the Iranian regime escalate its crackdown on the protests sweeping Iran — which appears to have already begun.

Trump warned in a post on his Truth Social platform last Friday that if Iran shoots “and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

The president renewed that threat on Thursday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” saying, “If they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots, they have lots of riots. If they do it, we’re going to hit them very hard.” But on Fox News’s “Hannity,” he said that “for the most part” the regime has not engaged in mass killings of protesters.

Asked on Thursday about the possibility of the U.S. helping the Iranian protesters, Vice President JD Vance expressed his support for the protesters but said he’d defer to Trump on what actions they would take. He also said the U.S. remains open to a “real negotiation” with Iran on its nuclear program.

“I’ll let the president speak to what we’re going to do in the future, but we certainly stand with anybody across the world, including the Iranian people, who are advocating for their rights,” he added.

Trump’s threat has been largely well-received by GOP lawmakers, but lawmakers from both parties have expressed support for the protesters generally. 

“To the people of Iran: We stand with you tonight,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News on Tuesday evening. “We stand for you taking back your country from the ayatollah, a religious Nazi who kills you and terrorizes the world,” he said, referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “We pray for you. We support you. Donald J. Trump is not Barack Obama. He has your back. … Help is on the way.”

“And to the ayatollah: You need to understand, if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life, Donald J. Trump is gonna kill you. Change is coming to Iran. It’ll be the biggest change in the history of the Mideast to get rid of this Nazi regime.”

“President Trump has been very clear: If the ayatollah harms the protesters, the consequences would be catastrophically painful,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Jewish Insider. “The regime should understand that the president is deadly serious and will enjoy strong support in Congress.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) told JI that “what the president said … [is] one of the things that we can do to help protect the Iranians who are protesting.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) told JI that the U.S. should act “in any possible way to support the Iranian protesters” and said he’d back any efforts in Congress to do so. 

“That’s the real truth to power. They started to kill people there. Remember, they are now so desperate. They’re trying to offer people $7 a month. They’re that desperate,” Fetterman said. “How courageous those protesters are — and that’s a testament to the opportunities Israel and our strikes created — they inspire me. These are Iranian protesters. That is real courage and real — being willing to either get killed, beaten, tortured or disappeared, that’s what happens in true autocracies.”

Other senators spoke more broadly about offering U.S. support for the protesters without addressing direct intervention. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) noted that lawmakers haven’t engaged extensively about ways for Congress to support the protesters since returning from the holiday recess on Monday, but said it was important for them to express their support. “I’m open to any ideas. I think there’s been very little talk [among lawmakers] in specific terms,” Blumenthal told JI.

“We should speak out and support them in spirit,” Blumenthal said. “I don’t know how much we can do, practically speaking. I know the president has talked about some kind of measures if anyone is killed. I don’t know exactly what he has in mind, but we ought to be supporting the freedom fighters and brave protesters in any way we can.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said that the “biggest thing that we can do is actually have public officials speak out that our problem with Iran is not the people of Iran, it’s the Iranian regime. Our problem is the same problem the people of Iran have.”

“The regime oppresses them, prevents them from actually being [as] successful as they could be. The people of Iran [are] extremely well educated, extremely sharp people [and] could be a lot more prosperous than they are, but they’re trapped behind a regime that’s obsessed with terrorism, and so they’re holding back their entire country so they can fund Hezbollah,” Lankford said. “So people can’t get food, people can’t have a stable currency, because they want to fund terrorism. Until they have an ability to be able to pick new leaders that will actually represent their values, they’re stuck.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said it is “wonderful” to see the protests happening and that the U.S. “should support them diplomatically, technologically and in other ways, so that they can communicate.”

“But I think we should be very hesitant about expressing our willingness to use military force in yet another country for yet another reason,” Schiff added.

Other Democrats have also discouraged the use of U.S. military force in response to the protests.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said the U.S. should “continue to show attention” toward Iran, “making sure we’re not just losing track of everything because of Venezuela, and just continuing to show that we want to make sure that the regime doesn’t crack down brutally as they have in the past.”

“I think that that’s an important sign right now, as this is continuing on,” Kim continued.

At the conclusion of the 12-day war in June of last year, both Israel and Iran suspected that the ceasefire brokered by the U.S. would be a pause, not a final cessation of hostilities. That truce has lasted for more than six months, with both sides wary of entering another military conflict — one likely to be more deadly and destructive than the first. 

But now, amid destabilizing world events from Venezuela to the Middle East — compounded by growing domestic pressure on the Islamic Republic amid nationwide protests — that ceasefire is even more tenuous, with officials in Tehran and Jerusalem closely watching the other’s every move, careful not to make a potentially disastrous miscalculation — even as both sides make overtures at de-escalation.

Speaking at the Knesset on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “President [Donald] Trump and I have expressed a firm stance — we won’t allow Iran to rebuild its ballistic missile industry or to renew the nuclear program, which we damaged severely in Operation Rising Lion.”

In response, Iran’s newly formed Defense Council warned on Tuesday that the country could act preemptively if it detects clear signs of a threat. “The long-standing enemies of this land … are pursuing a targeted approach by repeating and intensifying threatening language and interventionist statements in clear conflict with the accepted principles of international law, which is aimed at dismembering our beloved Iran and harming the country’s identity,” the council said.

Recent reports suggest that Israel, in an attempt to de-escalate tensions, has used Moscow as an intermediary, communicating through Russian President Vladimir Putin that it has no intention of launching a preemptive strike on Iranian soil. Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are unconvinced. 

In a post on X, Khamenei accused Israel of deception: “What makes the enemy first request a ceasefire during [12-day] war with the Iranian nation, then send messages saying he doesn’t want to fight us?” 

“Now if he doesn’t believe the messaging and thinks that Israel is about to attack then you can understand why Israel is worried Iran is about to miscalculate and attack. Very tense days/weeks ahead of us,” Nadav Pollak, a lecturer on the Middle East at Reichman University, commented on Khamenei’s post.

Pollak told Jewish Insider that he sees the perception gaps between Israel and Iran as the “No. 1 risk for miscalculation. As we’ve seen from Khamenei’s tweet, he doesn’t believe the messages that came from Jerusalem about Israel not planning to attack. In his mind, Bibi just came back from Washington with Trump supporting action against Iran if some red lines are crossed. Bibi also continues to talk about the Iranian ballistic missile threat every week and that Israel will need to do something.”

Israeli commentator Nadav Eyal noted on Dan Senor’s “Call Me Back” podcast that “Israeli security officials are extremely worried about what’s happening vis-a-vis Iran, first and foremost because the Iranians are so tense and they are constantly fearing an Israeli attack themselves. So their first worry is miscalculation … If Iran senses that Israel might attack, it wants to preempt that. If Israel thinks that Iran is going to do that, it would want to preempt that.”

Tehran is also facing trouble at home, amid protests that have spread across the country over the last two weeks. The growing unrest, coupled with the Islamic Republic’s economic and climate woes, has put added pressure on the ayatollahs.

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told JI that due to the Iranian regime’s vulnerable position amid nationwide protests over a severe economic crisis, “hardliners” within the IRGC could be weighing using a strike to “divert the public” and create national unity. However, he expressed that the decision would be a “strategic mistake,” suggesting that an Iranian strike this year is “highly unlikely.”

“It’s hard to see what the Iranians would gain,” said Miller. “A strike is simply going to wreak additional havoc on what the vast majority of the Iranian public is protesting against, which is inflation, a devaluation of the Iranian currency.”

Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed those sentiments, adding that any Iranian strike now while the regime in Tehran is “on the ropes” would be “suicidal.” 

“It seems unlikely that Iran would choose this moment to attack Israel,” said Misztal. “While it certainly might be looking for some way to distract its citizens from their grievances, all the evidence suggests that external aggression would have the opposite effect.”

Misztal said the Iranian regime is facing skyrocketing inflation and crumbling infrastructure “because it has chosen guns over butter and Iranians know it.” 

“To once again pick up guns would only further inflame Iranians’ rightful anger,” said Misztal. “Not to mention that a direct Iranian attack against Israel would surely invite a devastating Israeli, if not also American, response.”

The lingering question is whether the fear of miscalculation will push either side toward action.

In the aftermath of U.S. strikes in Venezuela and the capture of leader Nicolás Maduro, uncertainty remains over whether the South American country’s ties to key U.S. adversaries and hostile posture toward Israel will change under interim President Delcy Rodríguez. 

During his time in power, Maduro’s Venezuela had been deeply embedded in a broader network of U.S. adversaries, particularly Iran, Russia and China. 

Dana Stroul, research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explained that Venezuela “is a key supplier of cheap oil to China and has provided fertile ground for Iran’s terrorist network abroad.”

“Venezuela under Maduro was firmly part of the anti-American bloc of countries seeking to upend the post-WWII order,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at Israel Policy Forum. “Venezuela has particularly tight financial links with Iran and Hezbollah involving drugs and money laundering.”

The U.S. operation to oust Maduro was condemned by both China and Iran, who called it a violation of international law and demanded the illegitimate leader be freed. Experts have told Jewish Insider that the move potentially weakens Tehran’s hold in Latin America. 

“It’s no surprise that the key enablers of the Maduro regime have all rejected the U.S. actions in Venezuela,” said Stroul. “They are now faced with the challenge of filling the Western Hemisphere gap in their network of anti-U.S. stakeholders.” 

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said China and Iran will “miss having a Venezuelan partner to poke America in the eye from close range, launder their money, run their drugs and buy their weapons.”

Maduro also positioned himself as a consistent adversary of Israel, severing diplomatic relations in 2009 and repeatedly aligning Caracas with Palestinian causes and with Iran. After Venezuela’s disputed election in July 2024, Maduro accused “international Zionism” of orchestrating unrest in the country, claiming in a televised address that “all the communication power of Zionism, which controls all the social networks, the satellites and all the power, is behind this coup d’état.”

But despite Maduro’s capture and vows from Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado to return to the country and reject the authority of the interim president, the U.S. appears to be backing Rodríguez, who is closely aligned with Maduro and has shown a similar posture when it comes to Israel and U.S. adversaries, creating concerns over whether the direction of Venezuela’s foreign policy will change. 

Brad Bowman, a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that the Trump administration’s apparent backing of Rodríguez is a “mistake” and that he doesn’t see “any reason to believe” she would depart from Maduro’s approach to U.S. adversaries. 

“I have concern that we still have most of the problematic elements of the regime in Venezuela remaining in place,” said Bowman. “[Rodríguez] has been part of a regime that has been hostile to the United States and cozy with the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terror proxies. If one were a betting person, you would say at a minimum that [Rodríguez] is going to continue to harbor those problematic views toward China, Russia and Iran, if not manifest them in policy.”

At a swearing-in ceremony on Monday, the new leader appeared to embrace the ambassadors of Iran, China and Russia. In an address to the nation on Sunday, Rodríguez claimed the U.S. operation to capture the illegitimate dictator had “Zionist undertones,” echoing the sentiments of her predecessor. 

“Rodríguez wasted little time before blaming Jews — or Zionists — for Maduro’s capture,” said David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “A junior partner of Iran, China, and Russia’s axis of aggressors and host of the Hezbollah terrorist group, the regime of [former Venezuelan dictator Hugo] Chávez and Maduro will continue to be hostile to Israel and the West.”

Koplow said Venezuela’s tight bonds with Iran and Hezbollah create an “anti-Israel narrative that is wrapped up in any action regarding Venezuela.”

“The close U.S.-Israel relationship has created a decades-long anti-American and anti-Israel front that links opposition to one as part and parcel of opposition to the other in a larger anti-imperialist position that takes an anti-Western and anti-Zionist stance, and we are seeing that play out in the Venezuela situation as well,” said Koplow. 

Ruhe said Rodríguez’s claims were “sadly unsurprising,” and that “the Venezuelan government needs a perpetual enemy to justify its own rule.”

“The United States is the most obvious target, but leaders in Caracas scapegoat Jews and Israel, too,” said Ruhe, who added that the interim president’s initial statements “indicate key continuities with Maduro and Hugo Chavez before him.”

Bowman added that it is “not impossible” to change Rodríguez’s course of action away from Maduro’s past policy if it benefits her “personal political interests,” noting that it may take “an extraordinary set of incentives to get her to change course.” 

Lawmakers said on Monday that an additional round of U.S. strikes on Iran remains on the table if the regime makes strides in rebuilding its nuclear program or other malign activities, echoing recent warnings from President Donald Trump.

Trump also threatened last week that the U.S. would intervene to protect Iranian protesters if the regime cracked down on nationwide demonstrations, as U.S. officials are watching closely while Tehran reportedly accelerates efforts to restore its ballistic missile capabilities — developments that could spark renewed conflict with Israel and potentially the United States.

Republican senators expressed confidence that the president would strike Iranian nuclear facilities a second time if the U.S. determined that Tehran was working to restore its nuclear program. 

“I think there’s a chance” Trump will strike Iran’s nuclear sites again, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) told Jewish Insider. “If they go forward again and start building up nuclear facilities, yeah, I think Trump’s going to bomb the hell out of them.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) told JI, “President Trump is demonstrating that we have the most outstanding military in the world. And if he believes we have to hit Iran again, I believe he will do that.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) agreed but dismissed the suggestion that Trump’s willingness to order the operation that deposed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last week signified that the president was looking to resume strikes against Iran. 

“I don’t think one’s related to the other,” Kennedy told JI. “I also think that if Iran starts back in terms of developing a nuclear weapon, or substantially tries to increase the number of missiles that they have, I think the president should hit them and I believe he will.”

Asked about Trump’s threat to intervene to prevent crackdowns on Iranian protesters, and rumors of a potential second round of Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) emphasized the threat of Iran’s missile and nuclear programs.

“We should be considering what action may be appropriate if Iran progresses with its missile building and nuclear programs, which are obviously a pressing and dire threat to us and Israel,” Blumenthal said.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a leading voice in the Senate for constraining presidential war powers, who is pushing to block further action in Venezuela, told JI that the U.S. should not be sending in its military in response to the protests, particularly without congressional debate and approval.

“This president should not willy-nilly use the press, use the military as his palace guard to go here, there and everywhere,” Kaine said. “Not Nigeria, not Iran, not Venezuela, not international waters, not Cuba, not Mexico, not Panama, not Greenland. It should be a debate with Congress.”

He added that a constituent, whose son is an Army Ranger, urged Kaine during the holidays to work to prevent unilateral military deployments by the administration. “And I am representing one of the most pro-military states in the country, and that’s what my state thinks,” Kaine explained.

As protests continue to spread throughout Iran and the geopolitical repercussions of the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro ripple across world capitals, the sentiment around the Middle East and in Washington is that renewed conflict with the Islamic Republic may well be on the horizon.

While smaller than previous nationwide protests in 2019 and 2022, the newest demonstrations come as Iran is facing economic instability, crushing international sanctions and record droughts. The protests that have spread across the country in recent days are the first major demonstrations since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, with an assist from the U.S., last June that damaged the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and further destabilized Iran.

The protests in Iran were already gaining steam at the time a Delta Force team apprehended Maduro and his wife on Saturday and brought them to the U.S. to stand trial on drug trafficking charges. But the Trump administration’s decision to send elite forces into Caracas and forcibly remove Maduro signals to Tehran — as well as Moscow and Beijing — that Washington is taking a tougher approach to regimes it sees as destabilizing and threatening to U.S. interests.

The world is watching this geopolitical high-wire act with uncertainty. In Israel, officials are closely monitoring the instability in Iran, concerned that the regime in Tehran could move to strike Israel in an effort to consolidate domestic support and quell the protests; Israel could also see a window of opportunity to strike Iran at a weak moment, either of which could reignite warfare between Jerusalem and Tehran. It was less than a week ago that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and discussed the threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program.

In his weekly Cabinet meeting yesterday, Netanyahu addressed Iran in the context of his Palm Beach meeting last week, saying that Israel “reiterated our joint position of zero enrichment on one hand, and the need to remove the 400 kilograms of enriched material from Iran and oversee the sites with tight and genuine supervision.” 

Noting that his sit-down with Trump was taking place as anti-government protests broke out in Iran, Netanyahu added, “The Government of Israel, the State of Israel, and my policy, we identify with the struggle of the Iranian people, with their aspirations for freedom, liberty, and justice. It is very possible that we are standing at the moment when the Iranian people are taking their fate into their own hands.”

With an eye toward Washington, the question is whether Trump will back future military action in Iran, after his success ousting Maduro in Caracas. Despite the widespread protests in Iran, there is no consolidated opposition, where the regime’s opponents are, as The Atlantic’s Arash Azizi writes, “hopelessly disorganized and disunited.” 

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One last night, Trump reiterated his recent comments that the U.S. would intervene if Iranian officials were to kill protesters, having said on his Truth Social site on Friday that “If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue.” 

The Associated Press, citing human rights activists, reported that 15 people had been killed as of Saturday, the same day that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made his first public comments since the outbreak of protests, saying that “rioters must be put in their place.”

Iran’s political leadership appears at an impasse in its efforts to contain the demonstrations — or improve the conditions that led to them — with the hands of President Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior officials largely tied by the supreme leader. That could push the regime to act out of desperation — or to collapse entirely. 

An increasingly unlikely scenario is that the protests fizzle out and Khamenei reasserts control — a move that would likely need to occur alongside an economic upturn to pull the rial up from record lows.

The first days of 2026 have seen tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets across Iran and an administration in Washington flexing its military power, setting the stage for a potential power realignment in the Middle East and around the world. 

The U.S.’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Saturday is expected to weaken Iran’s terrorism efforts, weapons production and economic activity in Latin America, experts say.

With Vice President Delcy Rodriguez taking power — and the Trump administration expressing willingness to work with her — it remains unclear whether Maduro’s regime will largely remain intact with American supervision or if the government will ultimately be replaced by the democratic opposition, led by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Corina Machado, or someone else.  

While Venezuela’s future remains unclear, Israel’s leaders applauded what they saw as a pro-American turn, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressing support for the Trump administration’s “determined decision and action of the United States to restore freedom and justice to that part of the world.”

“Across Latin America right now, we are seeing a transformation,” Netanyahu said. “Several countries are returning to the American axis and, not surprisingly, to a connection with the State of Israel. We welcome this.”

Emmanuele Ottolenghi, senior research fellow at the Center for Research on Terror Financing, told Jewish Insider that “if the regime remains in place [under Washington’s supervision], there will have to be adjustments in its regional posture and foreign policy. That means, of course, the role that nefarious foreign actors such as China, Russia, Cuba and Iran played in Venezuela will change.”

Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, told JI that “the Iranians turned Venezuela into a strategic hub, and now that has disappeared.”

“Iran built a very deep operative and strategic relationship with [Maduro’s predecessor Hugo] Chavez, and it uses Venezuela … as its jumping-off point for influence in Latin America,” he said.

Ottolenghi said that Maduro’s government allowed Iran to operate freely in Venezuela, which Tehran took advantage of in a variety of arenas, including propaganda, terrorism and arms manufacturing.

Tehran established a drone factory in Venezuela, in which Venezuelans produced Iranian drones, Ottolenghi said.

The recently foiled terrorist plot to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Mexico was planned by Iranian operatives in Caracas, Ottolenghi added.

“The Iranians made Caracas the hub of all their propaganda and soft power operations in the region, including their Spanish-language 24/7 news network,” Ottolenghi said. “They established a permanent presence in Caracas for their missionary network, under the umbrella of the sanctioned Al-Mustafa International University.”

After former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi visited Caracas in 2023, scientific and academic exchanges between the countries grew, and Iran was granted greater access to Venezuela’s economy.

The economic relationship with Venezuela has been important for Iran, Ottolenghi said.

“Venezuela assisted Iran in evading sanctions prior to the JCPOA [2015 Iranian nuclear deal], but since 2019-2020, when the Venezuelan economy sharply deteriorated, Iran gained the upper hand in the relationship,” he said. “Maduro essentially joined the ‘axis of resistance.’”

The country with the largest proven oil reserves in the world needed to buy refined gasoline from Iran because of “the dramatic deterioration in quality in the oil industry in Venezuela after years of cronyism, brain drain, corruption and mismanagement purging the national oil company,” Ottolenghi explained. “The Iranians stepped in to stop Venezuela from collapsing for lack of refined [oil] products, providing technicians, technology, refined gasoline shipped from Iran in exchange for gold. That gave [Iran] even more leverage inside Venezuela, including the ability to operate one of the refineries for their own needs.” 

As for Hezbollah, Citrinowicz noted that the Lebanese terrorist organization is “very important to [Iran], in that it connects the Shi’ite communities in Latin America.” 

Ottolenghi said that Hezbollah “benefitted from both the protection of the regime and the large expat community of Lebanese immigrants and their descendants … who are sympathetic to the movement and enabled them to become involved in money laundering and other financial activities … including crypto and reportedly illegal gold mining in the southeast of the country.” 

Though Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy, it has independent sources of income, including the Latin American drug trade.

Maduro’s fall “will make it hard [for Hezbollah] to keep up those ties,” Citrinowicz said.

Ottolenghi said that “traditionally, [Hezbollah] has played mainly the role of intermediary for drug cartels, providing services in logistics, distribution and financial channels to move the money in complex translational transactions.”

However, he noted that, as opposed to Tehran, Hezbollah’s operations in Latin America have not been primarily based in Venezuela, and that until recently, the terrorist group’s senior official in Latin America was based in São Paolo, Brazil. 

“Insofar as Maduro’s removal may curb Iran’s influence and its proxies in Venezuela, it does not address necessarily what Hezbollah is doing in other countries,” Ottolenghi said.

Maduro’s fall is one of “a series of blows” to Iran in recent years, Citrinowicz said, with the governments of Bolivia, Chile and Argentina turning more pro-American, and the same is likely to happen in Colombia in its upcoming presidential election.

“Iran likes working with socialist regimes that counter the West,” Citrinowicz said. “They can’t leave Latin America entirely. … They will need to work with what’s left and emphasize Cuba and Nicaragua.” 

Citrinowicz said that Iran will likely pivot its investments of time and money to Africa. 

President Donald Trump vowed on Monday that he would support the U.S. or Israel launching another round of strikes against Iran if Tehran is attempting to rebuild its ballistic missile program or nuclear facilities.

Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the latter’s fifth visit to the United States this year. 

Asked if he will support another Israeli attack on Iran if they continue their ballistic missile and nuclear programs, Trump said, “If they continue with the missiles? Yes. If the nuclear? Fast, okay? One will be yes, absolutely; the other was, we’ll do it immediately.”

He added later, “If they are [rearming], we’re going to have no choice but very quickly to eradicate that build up. … We don’t want to waste the fuel on a B-2 [bomber]. It’s a 37-hour trip, both ways, I don’t want to waste a lot of fuel,” suggesting the U.S. would again utilize its bomber jets that conducted the June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The president repeatedly urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table with the U.S. while cautioning that the regime would face consequences for declining his offer to address the nuclear issue diplomatically. “They could have made a deal the last time before we went through the big attack on them, and they decided not to make the deal. They wish they made that deal. So I think, again, they should make a deal,” he said.

About reports that Iran is rearming, Trump said, “Iran may be behaving badly. It hasn’t been confirmed, but if it’s confirmed, look, they know the consequences.”

“This is just what we hear, but usually where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” he continued. “I’m hearing that their [efforts are] not nuclear yet, but maybe nuclear, too. The sites were obliterated, but they’re looking at other sites [than the ones the U.S. bombed in June]. That’s what I’ve heard. They’re looking. It’ll take a long time. They’re not going to go back to where they were, but they have other places they can go. And if they’re doing that, they’re making a big mistake.”

Trump repeatedly praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in his remarks with Netanyahu, pledging to thaw tensions between the Turkish and Israeli leaders and repeated that he was “very seriously” considering approving Turkey’s longstanding requests to purchase F-35 fighter jets from the United States. “We’re thinking about it very seriously,” Trump said about the move, which Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said last month that Israel opposes.

“I know President Erdogan very well, and as you all know, he’s a very good friend of mine … and I do respect him and Bibi respects him, and they’re not going to have a problem,” Trump said.

Speaking to reporters alongside Netanyahu ahead of their meeting, Trump also voiced his support for Turkey joining the proposed U.S.-led International Stabilization Force to be deployed in Gaza.

“I have a great relationship with President Erdogan, and we’ll be talking about it. And if it’s good, I think that’s good. And a lot will be having to do with Bibi, we’re going to be talking about that,” Trump said. “But Turkey has been great, and he [Erdogan] has been excellent, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know about you [Netanyahu], but to me he’s been very good.” 

Netanyahu did not comment on the suggestion at the time or during the press conference later on, though Israel, as well as several U.S. lawmakers, has said it opposes Ankara’s involvement in the proposed peacekeeping force due largely to Turkey’s ties to Hamas, despite the supportive posture from the Trump administration.

The president later used the topic of Syria to again praise Erdogan, arguing the Turkish leader deserved “a lot of credit” for ousting the Assad regime. 

“Don’t forget, it was President Erdogan that helped very much get rid of a very bad ruler of Syria. That was President Erdogan, and he never wanted the credit for it, but he really gets a lot of credit. Bibi agrees with that. … I know it,” Trump told reporters. 

The president went on to say that the U.S. and Israel “have an understanding regarding Syria” and that he was working to improve relations between the Jewish state and its neighbor, praising Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa along the way. 

“We do have an understanding regarding Syria. Now with Syria, your new president. I respect him. He’s a very strong guy. That’s what you need in Syria. You can’t put a choir boy, you can’t put somebody that’s a perfect person — everything’s nice, no problems in life,” Trump said. 

“I’m sure that Israel and him will get along,” he continued. “I will try and make it so that they do get along. I think they will.” 

For its part, Israel has been wary of al-Sharaa and the new Syrian government, with the IDF maintaining control of the 155-square-mile buffer zone between the two countries since the fall of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad last year, against Damascus’ wishes. Israel and Syria have also continued to disagree on the contours of a potential security agreement, which the Trump administration has continuously sought, with Netanyahu maintaining that any agreement must require Syria to accept the demilitarization of territory stretching from southern Damascus to the Israeli border.  

Trump was also asked about the Lebanese government’s failure thus far to disarm Hezbollah, amid reports that the terror group is rearming. The president demurred when pressed on his support of Israel striking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon again as a result, instead only acknowledging his disapproval with the terrorist organization. 

“Well, we’re going to see about that. We’ll see about it,” Trump said. “The Lebanese government is at a little bit of a disadvantage, if you think of it, with Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has been behaving badly. So we’ll see what happens.”

Asked about attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, Trump acknowledged that he and Netanyahu discussed the West Bank during the meeting and that they’re not in complete alignment on the issue. Still, Trump expressed confidence that all parties would reach “a conclusion” to prevent the matter from undermining the implementation of his broader peace plan, though he declined to offer specifics.

“Well, we have had a discussion, big discussion, for a long time on the West Bank. And I wouldn’t say we agree on the West Bank 100%, but we will come to a conclusion on the West Bank. … It’ll be announced at an appropriate time, but [Netanyahu] will do the right thing. I know that. I know him very well. He will do the right thing,” he said.

Trump also expressed gratitude during his remarks for being named the recipient of the Israel Prize, the Jewish state’s highest cultural honor awarded by the country’s education minister. Netanyahu said Trump will be the first non-Israeli to receive the award, which the president said “really is a great honor.”

Netanyahu invited Trump to visit Israel on Yom Ha’atzmaut, the Jewish state’s independence day, in April, which will be an election year, to receive the award in person. 

Joined by Trump at his the meeting with Netanyahu were White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles; Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Steve Witkoff, the White House’s Mideast envoy; and Jared Kushner, Trump’s advisor on Middle East efforts. 

Netanyahu also met individually with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth while at the president’s property. 

In recent days, a chorus of left-wing lawmakers in Congress have ramped up their ire towards the United Arab Emirates, accusing the Gulf country of helping fuel the yearslong civil war in Sudan by reportedly backing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the non-Islamist Arab force fighting the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). 

The UAE has long denied allegations of involvement in the war. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that, according to sources, recent assessments by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department’s intelligence bureau purport to show the UAE sending Chinese drones to the RSF. 

On the other side, Iran, Russia, Egypt and Turkey have provided support to the SAF, according to conflict monitors and reporting by Bloomberg and The Washington Post.

The war in Sudan has wrought havoc upon the eastern African nation, with both warring factions committing crimes against humanity. The conflict has killed as many as 150,000 people and has displaced around 12 million. 

Over the more than two-year long conflict, both militias have been accused of widespread sexual assault, mass killings of civilians, torture and deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure. On Monday, the RSF captured the city of El Fasher after an 18-month blockade which saw the group effectively devastate the city, with reports of mass killings, sexual violence and the destruction of hospitals and displacement camps.

The U.S. government, under former President Joe Biden, determined the RSF was committing genocide and found both the RSF and SAF guilty of committing war crimes.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing influence with the Sudanese Armed Forces has alarmed experts, who warn that the SAF’s deepening ties to Islamist networks threaten regional stability and could pose a risk far beyond the eastern African nation.

“The Muslim Brotherhood has had a strong presence in Sudan since the 1940s and that presence has evolved over the years,” Norman Roule, a former senior U.S. intelligence official, told Jewish Insider. “It’s important to note that this presence is also why Iran is such a strong supporter of the Burhan [head of SAF] government.” 

Liam Karr, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, who has condemned actions on both sides of the conflict, says the ties date back to former Islamist dictator Omar al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for several decades before the SAF overthrew him in 2019. 

“The SAF is working with several Islamist brigades that consist of former Bashir-era army, police and intelligence personnel,” Karr told JI. “This includes the al Baraa Ibn Malik Brigade, which is widely associated with the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood and Bashir and has an estimated 20,000 fighters.” 

In recent months, the SAF has received explosive attack drones from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to aid in the conflict, while Egypt, one of their key backers, arrested a key Islamist militia leader aligned with the group — signaling that even staunch regional supporters of the group are “growing wary of its Islamist factions,” according to Foundation for Defense of Democracies Research Fellow Hussain Adbul-Hussain. 

Roule said Iran has a vested interest in providing the SAF with weaponry in order to reestablish a presence in the region and revitalize their “broken proxies,” following Israel’s degrading of its military capabilities and of its proxy Hezbollah, as well as the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. 

“This is of extreme importance to the U.S. and its partners in the region, because if the Quds Force [IRGC] is able to establish a presence it lost in Syria, it would be able to reestablish training camps it operated a decade ago for Hamas smugglers, routes for weapons that it could send back into Gaza and revitalize Lebanese Hezbollah, as well as provide a transshipment location of weapons to the Houthis,” said Roule. “The Muslim Brotherhood presence in Khartoum is of serious concern for the United States and deserves much greater attention. It is a significant threat to the United States, Israel and the region.” 

Anti-Israel lawmakers, including some of the Jewish state’s most vocal critics in the House, have sounded the alarm on the RSF, but have notably glossed over the SAF and its increasingly Islamist alignment. 

“Sudan is facing the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and a genocide,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in a post on social media on Tuesday. “The UAE and other arms dealers to the RSF and RSF-aligned militias must be held accountable.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) echoed the same sentiment, saying she is “horrified” by the RSF’s “mass killings of civilians.”

“We must do everything in our power to stop this genocide, including cutting off all weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates who are arming and funding this ethnic cleansing,” said Tlaib on social media on Wednesday.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) followed suit and similarly directed his criticism at the Emirates. 

“I am incredibly concerned about the deepening humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and the atrocities committed by the Rapid Support Forces,” Castro wrote on social media on Wednesday. “The United States must put pressure on the RSF and those who back it — including the United Arab Emirates — to end these atrocities.”

A number of far-left activists online have also singled out the RSF and its reported Emirati ties for condemnation. 

Kenneth Roth, a virulent critic of Israel and former head of Human Rights Watch, posted on Tuesday, “British arms sold to the United Arab Emirates are being found in Sudan, where the UAE is arming the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces as they commit genocide.” 

“Both the Biden and Trump administrations refused to hold the UAE accountable as it armed Sudan’s RSF, despite massacre after massacre, atrocity after atrocity,” wrote New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, adding, “Members of Congress are showing more responsibility and initiative.” 

House Democrats, led by Reps. Gregory Meeks and Sara Jacobs, released a statement in April marking the two year anniversary of the conflict. “External actors like the UAE must immediately stop fueling the conflict by arming the warring parties,” the statement said notably only listing the UAE and omitting any mention of Turkey, Iran, Russia, and other countries who have sent arms to factions in Sudan.

A bi-partisan group of senators, including Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, released a statement on Thursday breaking in tone from the other lawmakers – condemning both sides and making mention of all nations reportedly backing the war. 

“Both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have committed atrocities against civilians and pursued a zero-sum war at any cost,” the lawmakers said in a statement. “Foreign backers of the RSF and SAF-including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Russia, Iran, China and governments in the immediate region-have fueled and profited from the conflict and legitimized the monsters destroying Sudan,” the senators continued. 

Secular forces in Sudan have called for the country’s Islamist movement to be classified as a terrorist group, according to Hussain. Sudan’s Civil Democratic Alliance of Revolutionary Forces (Sumud) has stated that the “Islamist movement sees no pathway for ending the fighting other than the complete submission of the Sudanese people to its terrorist regime, an arrangement that has never achieved peace.” 

Karr says the Trump administration and the SAF’s own partners have put “heavy pressure” on the group to “distance itself politically from the Islamist groups.” Karr also believes pressure should be applied to the RSF.

In his second term, President Donald Trump voiced support for designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Various members of congress have introduced legislation that would require the secretary of state to use this designation, though Congress has yet to move forward with the legislation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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