As diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran continues following the adoption of the memorandum of understanding between the two countries last week, Washington is again leaning on Qatar to serve as a critical interlocutor, further cementing Doha’s standing as an intermediary despite the significant setbacks sustained by the Gulf state during the recent war with Iran.

In an interview with UnHerd that was published on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance, traveling back from the Iran talks in Switzerland earlier this week, said that Doha would serve as the location for CENTCOM to meet with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials — despite the IRGC’s designation as a foreign terror organization by the U.S. (a move undertaken by President Donald Trump in his first term).

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

Doha has long played a role in the back-channel communications between the U.S. and adversaries. But Vance’s comments underscore the degree to which Qatar’s once-quiet intermediary role is now not only public, but a key element of the infrastructure supporting the new regional dynamics.

The close relationship between Washington and Doha was on full display during the Switzerland talks. On Sunday, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani posted a photo of himself with Vance and Jared Kushner as the three huddled around a laptop. “Live from Lucerne, work continues” with Vance and Kushner, Al Thani wrote in separate English and Arabic posts.

Earlier this week, the White House leaned on Al Jazeera, the Qatari-owned media outlet, to deny a report that Vance had been snubbed by the Iranians at a press conference following talks in Switzerland — a signal that Washington is increasingly treating Qatari institutions as useful and legitimate when its message is being amplified.

Qatar wasn’t affected by the war in the same way as the UAE, which faced more missile fire than any other country in the region, including Israel. But it also wasn’t immune from Iranian attacks. Early in the war, Iranian missiles targeted the Gulf state’s Ras Laffan gas complex, causing some $20 billion in annual revenue loss and damage that is estimated to take five years to fully repair.

The strike on Ras Laffan came in spite of a secret effort by Qatar, first reported by The Washington Post, to press Iran not to target the facility. In exchange, the Post reported, Doha offered to use its leverage to halt gas production and send oil costs up — moves intended to increase pressure on the U.S. and Israel to wind down the war quickly.

Qatar has long tried to play to all sides in conflicts even as it serves as a mediator — despite the inherent risks. It was an Iranian strike on the U.S. base in Qatar last June that marked one of the final salvos of the 12-day war. Months later, five Hamas members and a Qatari security guard were killed in an Israeli strike on a building used by Hamas for its senior officials who live in Doha.

Doha’s strategy over the last two decades of investing anywhere and everywhere has largely paid off (though not through sports prowess, as evidenced by the Qatari team’s World Cup loss to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday). In this next phase, Qatar will continue to seek to play a key role in Iran talks and the implementation of any agreements — ensuring that the Gulf state has significant buy-in in shaping the future of the region.

Breaking with many Senate Republicans who have expressed skepticism about various elements of the Trump administration’s memorandum of understanding with Iran, House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the deal on Tuesday.

House Republicans returned to Washington on Tuesday for the first time since the deal with Iran was finalized.

“We need to keep forward with good progress, the details are still being negotiated, so I’m not going to prejudge,” Johnson said.

“There’s a lot of moving parts right now,” Johnson said, when asked whether he has concerns about the lifting of oil sanctions under the agreement, as he did for the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal. “It is something the Trump administration is working around the clock on. I trust that they’re going to come to a lasting solution on that. The world desperately needs it and we do as well.”

When pressed, he said that he has “always been a supporter of strong sanctions against Iran” but added that there’s “a lot of moving parts to this” and that he’s “not going to tell the administration how to negotiate that.”

Johnson added that he is “heartened to see” gas prices decreasing and the Strait of Hormuz reopened.

While several Republican defense hawks in the Senate have criticized the administration’s deal with and concessions to Iran, others say they want to see the full effects of the agreement and the potential outcome of negotiations first.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said at an Orthodox Union luncheon on Tuesday that he is currently weighing in privately with Republican leadership and the White House about his views on the deal, “in the hopes that at the end of all of this, that Israel is in a better neighborhood, and I believe that … can happen.” He said he would speak out publicly if “appropriate.”

Other hawkish Republicans have pointed blame for the deal away from the president himself.

As the details around the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran emerge, Vice President JD Vance, who has been deputized with leading the effort, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ostensibly the Trump administration’s top diplomat, have offered different messaging around the issue of Lebanon and Hezbollah being subsumed into discussions with Tehran.

After the U.S. and Iran agreed to create a “deconfliction cell” for military operations in Lebanon — a mechanism that, notably, does not include Israel — Vance said on Monday that the U.S. will be counting on Iran to “rein in” its proxy Hezbollah, without referencing Tehran’s material support for the terror group. 

Vance called on Israel to respond to Hezbollah’s attacks “in the context of a conversation that’s ongoing between Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel and other partners in the region.” He said the conflict is “a bit of a chicken and egg problem,” in which he claimed lower-level Hezbollah operatives are firing on Israel without approval from their superiors.

Rubio, meanwhile, has been clearer about Iran’s role in propagating terror in the Middle East. Arriving in the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday, he said a “complete end of hostilities in the entire region” is “not possible … as long as Iranian proxies are launching missiles and drones from Iraq and are participating in terrorism like Hamas did and like Hezbollah did.”

WATCH: Marco Rubio said upon arriving in Abu Dhabi that the U.S.–Iran and Israel–Lebanon diplomatic tracks “are separate because Lebanon is a sovereign country,” while adding that Iran’s “support and sponsorship of Hezbollah” will be part of “our conversations with the Iranians.” pic.twitter.com/iADhszGTZC

— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) June 23, 2026

Rubio also distanced the Lebanon conflict from negotiations with Iran: Asked if he believes the Israel-Lebanon peace process should be separate from the Iran discussions, Rubio said, “That process is separate.”

“It’s separate because Lebanon is a sovereign country. … When it comes to Lebanon and what’s happening inside of Lebanon, we’re going to negotiate a deal directly with the Lebanese government,” he continued, again without mentioning Israel.

“Now, there’s an Iranian issue with regards to Lebanon, and that is their support and sponsorship of Hezbollah. And so that factor will be discussed as part of our conversation with the Iranians, but … the future of Lebanon belongs to the Lebanese people, through their sovereign, elected government, and that’s who we’re going to be working with,” Rubio said.

He referenced a phone call he and Vance held earlier on Tuesday with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who said in a readout that the deconfliction mechanism will now include Lebanon as a party.

Olivia Wales, a White House spokesperson, told Jewish Insider, “Both Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio are in lockstep with President Trump: Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and must stop their proxies in Lebanon from causing trouble. What President Trump and his entire national security team achieved on the battlefield and at the negotiating table is nothing short of remarkable and will strengthen American security for years to come.”

This story was updated on June 23 to include comment from the White House.

Jewish Republican donors and activists are voicing their strong disappointment with President Donald Trump’s newly announced memorandum of understanding with Iran, which has been met with criticism from GOP lawmakers as well as influential hawkish conservatives.

Trump has fiercely defended the deal to end the war with Iran, the text of which was released Wednesday, claiming it is superior to the nuclear agreement with Tehran that was reached by former President Barack Obama in 2015.

But in interviews with Jewish Insider on Thursday, several Jewish conservatives who supported the war expressed misgivings about the deal that reopens the Strait of Hormuz, saying that it had granted too many concessions to a weakened Iran — including waiving sanctions on oil exports — while neglecting to broach the regime’s funding of terror proxies and its ballistic missile arsenal.

They also raised concerns that the memorandum of understanding with Tehran had not been favorable to Israel, a U.S. partner in the war, pointing to a term of the preliminary agreement that calls for a permanent end to military operations in Lebanon, where Israel is fighting Hezbollah, a key Iranian ally.

And they expressed serious doubts over Iran’s willingness to finalize a nuclear agreement during the 60-day negotiating period, fearing it could be indefinitely extended by “mutual consent,” per the terms of the MOU.

Their reactions highlight a rare point of tension between Trump and pro-Israel Republicans, who have long applauded his commitment to upholding a close alliance with the Jewish state, even amid rising hostility to Israel from the populist far right opposed to foreign wars.

Vice President JD Vance, who had initially been skeptical of the war, delivered a scathing public rebuke of Israeli officials who had criticized the agreement, saying on Thursday that Trump is “the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time” and warning Israeli detractors against “attacking the only powerful ally” they have “anywhere left in the entire world.”

But Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser who is on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said that the war “achieved none of its stated aims,” including Trump’s pledge to liberate Iranians from a theocratic regime and nuclear disarmament. “We ran 26 miles, and then chose to stop at the last 385 yards,” he told JI. “I don’t understand why.”

“The most disturbing thing about the deal is that we have conceded to the Iranians up front that they can leave Lebanon alone,” Levine added, saying the deal effectively constrained Israel’s right to defend itself.

Levine predicted a future scenario in which Hezbollah would be “lobbing missiles into Israel” before the upcoming elections in Israel and the United States, prompting a disastrous chain reaction that could lead to the collapse of the deal and result in widespread GOP losses in November.

“Call me disappointed that we’re going down this road,” he sighed.

The RJC, for its part, was more positive about the deal, saying on Thursday that it had confidence in Trump’s decision, even as it was “deeply skeptical that the Islamic Republic has a genuine interest in peace or will abandon its Islamist, hegemonic malign ambitions in the region.”

The group said it was reassured that Trump had threatened to strike Iran again if it reneged on the agreement. “We take the president at his word and trust him to finish the job in the best interests of the United States and our allies in the region,” the RJC wrote in a lengthy statement.

Other Jewish leaders, however, have not been as charitable in assessing Trump’s motivations. One prominent Jewish Republican donor criticized the deal, speculating it had only come as a response to Trump’s fears about GOP losses in the midterms, as the war and rising gas prices have emerged as potent sources of Democratic attacks.

Gabriel Groisman, a Republican donor in Florida, said the terms of the deal were “certainly worrisome,” noting that “there is still no agreement on the major issues” such as “uranium enrichment, Iran’s ballistic missile program and its funding of terrorist proxies,” even as “sanctions relief appears poised to take effect immediately.”

“This MOU is not the end of the war and it unfortunately will not bring lasting peace,” he told JI. “Instead,” he added, “it appears to signal a significant realignment of American policy in the region, which raises serious concerns for many Americans, for U.S. allies and of course for American Jews, who have a special interest in the safety and security of the world’s only Jewish state.”

Joshua Katzen, the publisher of the Jewish News Syndicate and an RJC board member, echoed that sentiment, saying that he was “disappointed to see” Trump “apparently throwing away the leverage he has painstakingly accumulated and trading it for promises that are likely to be broken.”

“The worst aspect is that by relieving sanctions and allowing Iran to sell oil before they have performed more than letting a few ships through Hormuz,” he added, “Trump had given them the funds to rebuild and reconstitute the threat that he just spent billions of dollars to degrade.”

Katzen expressed hope that Trump was “playing four-dimensional chess here, as he often has in the past, but right now, I’m not so sure his horizon is larger than temporarily reducing oil prices while giving Iran the funds and time to renew their existential threat.”

While many Jewish Republicans acknowledged that Trump had been a strong friend to Israel and praised his initial decision to attack Iran, they were otherwise largely baffled about his decision to end the war, even as some attempted to put a positive spin on the move.

“I’m on a bunch of various threads and the majority are not happy, to say the least,” Alan Sager, a Jewish Republican donor and activist based in Texas, told JI. “I’m a wait-and-see guy.”

Still, he added that he was confused with Trump’s decision and doubted the Iranians would operate in good faith — particularly with regard to nuclear talks that have long proven to be unfruitful. “I don’t know what Trump is thinking,” he told JI. “I don’t trust the Iranians as far as I can throw them.”

Brad Kastan, a GOP donor in Ohio, said he was “taken aback like everybody else” when he learned about the deal, while acknowledging there was “no doubt” Trump ceded valuable leverage in readily agreeing to a range of key concessions. 

“But as in most things in life, things are never as good as you hoped or as bad as you feared,” he told JI, speculating that perhaps Trump agreed to an end to the war in order to “buy more time” for the United States and Israel to replenish their eroding munitions reserves. “Why would you let them off the mat unless you needed to?” 

“For every disappointment, I can’t help but think of all the good that happened. There are a lot of people rushing to jump to conclusions” while ignoring “the bigger picture,” Kastan said. “To conclude we are not better off today than we were a year ago is objectively false,” he argued, claiming “Iran is back on its heels.”

Marc Zell, an Israeli-American lawyer and chairman of Republicans Overseas Israel, said in a social media post on Friday that he did not “like the content of the MOU or the tone of certain statements from the” White House “defending it, but that’s politics in an election year.”  

“The bottom line is the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is strong and inviolable,” Zell wrote.

One top Jewish Republican bundler said he was also more sanguine about Trump’s deal. “He took a huge risk for Israel, and people need to see what happens and calm down,” the bundler told JI, referring to the start of the war in February. “No president has done more than him or would do more.”

But Joel Geiderman, an RJC board member in Los Angeles, argued that “Israel’s last reliable ally seems to have abandoned her,” telling JI that he was “very disappointed” with the recently approved agreement.

Another top GOP donor, who also spoke with JI on condition of anonymity to address a sensitive subject in the wake of the deal, suggested that he was looking at the agreement through a realist’s lens.

In initially launching the war, Trump had “greatly underestimated Iran’s capabilities and willingness to stick with it,” and “put himself in a box where he had to make a deal,” the donor explained. “Every time he announced we had won the war, they’d shoot another ballistic missile.”

“Do I like this deal? Hell no. Nobody thinks he made a great deal. But there’s a difference between making a great deal and making the only deal you can make,” he told JI. “Knowing Donald Trump, he was going to make a deal.”

J Street is slated to host a virtual briefing for congressional staff on the Trump administration’s memorandum of understanding with Iran featuring former Biden administration special envoy for Iran Rob Malley, who was suspended from his State Department role amid an investigation over his handling of classified materials.

The event, scheduled for next Tuesday, will feature Malley alongside Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. It’s being co-organized by the Center for International Policy and Win Without War.

The Center for International Policy is a far-left think tank led in part by former Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) advisor Matt Duss, that has taken a strongly hostile stance toward Israel, including opposing U.S. aid to Israel and describing Israel’s operations in Gaza as a genocide.

Malley was suspended for much of Biden’s term in office under suspicion of leaking classified documents, though he said the investigation into him had been closed during the Trump administration, and denied any knowledge of what the investigation pertained to.

A State Department inspector general’s report found that Malley was improperly allowed to continue working in his role for some time after his security clearance was suspended, and that his direct supervisor and other senior officials were not notified of his suspension.

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday issued a scathing public rebuke of Israeli officials who have criticized President Donald Trump for approving the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran, cautioning Israeli skeptics of the deal against “attacking the only powerful ally” it has left and urging them to “wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”

Vance made the comments as part of his final answer at a White House press briefing regarding the MOU, directing his ire at members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet who have criticized the deal or the president himself. The vice president said he was angered by the harsh commentary, which he credited Netanyahu for not participating in.

“What I will say, and it does bother me, is that you have seen people within Bibi’s Cabinet who have come out and attacked the deal, and in some ways very personally attacked the president of the United States, and I guess my message to them would be twofold,” Vance said. “Number one, Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time and he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower. If I was in the Cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

“The second message I would give to some of those Cabinet members — Bibi, to his credit, has not gone down this path,” Vance continued. “But to some of these Cabinet members in Israel who are attacking the president of the United States, the other thing that I would say is that over the last three months, two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars,” he added. 

Vance then said, “The problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump, and anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”

The vice president pushed back on comparisons between the MOU and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the Obama administration signed in 2015, arguing that the Arab world’s reaction to this current effort has been far more positive than its response to former President Barack Obama’s Iran deal. 

“There are going to be any number of opinions about the negotiations, about where it’s ultimately going to go, but I tend to think that you should trust the people who know the Iranians the best and who have the most to lose,” Vance said. “What are the Gulf Arab states saying about this deal? What are they saying about this deal compared to the JCPOA in 2015? This is the Obama nuclear deal. Well, back then they hated that deal. They felt like it empowered the Iranians to be bad actors across the region, and of course that’s exactly what happened.”

“What are they saying about the president’s peace deal? They’re saying this is an amazingly transformative thing for the region, because either way we and the broader region win,” he continued. “Iran is weakened, their nuclear program destroyed, their economy in desperate straits, and if they change their behavior, big things are going to happen for Iran and for the world.”

Vance doubled down when asked about Trump’s comments on Wednesday that the U.S. would not forbid Iran from possessing ballistic missiles and downplaying the threat of the regime continuing to have those weapons — despite it being a key goal of the negotiations.

“All the president said yesterday is that of course, countries don’t give up the right of self-defense. Israel doesn’t give up the right of self-defense if Hezbollah fires rockets or drones at Israel,” Vance said. 

“The Iranians don’t give up the right of self-defense in their country,” he added. “But we do expect that as part of the final deal, they are not going to be able to build the kind of missiles that can broadly threaten the entire world, and that’s what the president of the United States said yesterday. It’s very simple. You can’t tell a country whether Israel, Iran, they are not allowed to have any self-defense.”

Vance criticized U.S. sanctions against Iran, arguing that the effort to isolate Iran economically has been “fundamentally ineffective” despite it being a core part of Trump’s longstanding maximum-pressure campaign. The vice president said that the sanctions had forced Iran to “move the Iranian financial system to the shadow-banking system” where it was no longer subject to those penalties. 

“We didn’t see that as a major concession to the Iranians, frankly,” Vance told reporters, adding that Iran “didn’t see that as a concession to them, because what prevented them from selling oil was not the sanctions.”

He argued that the lifting of sanctions would allow the U.S. to have greater oversight of Iran’s financial activities while defending the Trump administration’s decision to allow Iran to immediately resume selling oil.

“The number one thing is that we actually see where the money moves now because of what we’ve done with the financial sanctions. We actually know where the money is going to move,” he explained. “So we have great confidence that we’re going to be able to see if they try to fund terrorist organizations.”

Still, he reiterated his claim that the MOU does not involve millions in payouts to Iran despite the agreement text stating that the U.S. “undertakes to develop a definitive, mutually agreed reconstruction and economic development plan for the Islamic Republic of Iran valued at a minimum of $300 billion (USD).”

“The United States isn’t giving up a cent of money to Iran, and even the economic benefits, the sanctions relief and so forth that comes along with this bargain, only happens if the Iranians perform,” Vance said. “We have them in an economic chokehold right now that we’re not going to release until they fundamentally change their behavior.”

“I’ve seen skeptics of the deal. People say the Iranians will never change their behavior. Well, maybe that’s true, and if so, they don’t get any of the benefits of the bargain. But isn’t it worth trying?” he continued. “Isn’t it worth seeing whether this incredibly weakened position that the president of the United States has put the Iranians under, whether that motivates them to change their behavior, not just vis-à-vis the West but vis-à-vis the Middle East.”

The vice president also expressed confidence that the Trump administration would be able to lift the sanctions without congressional approval, though he said that White House Legislative Affairs Director James Braid planned “to brief Congress very soon” on the broader terms of the deal.

“There are certain things that require congressional approval. There are certain things that don’t require congressional approval,” he said. “We feel quite confident that we can temporarily lift those sanctions without going to Congress and seeking their approval on that.”

Israeli national security expert Dan Schueftan said on Monday that President Donald Trump’s memorandum of understanding with Iran “proves nobody in the Western world is willing to fight. If we need to get permission from countries like Iran in order to use international waterways then we are in very deep trouble.” 

The one exception, according to Schueftan, is Israel, which he called the “only one power in the Middle East that can contain the radicals … the only real power in this region that is committed to fighting the radicals and will fight the radicals.”  

Schueftan, the chairman of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, made the comments while appearing on British journalist Jonathan Sacerdoti’s YouTube show. 

Trump “built up the spirit of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranians, the Houthis,” Schueftan asserted. The president’s proposal that the terrorist groups disarm was “ridiculous,” continued Schueftan, who said the agreement with Iran has surpassed former President Barack Obama’s “high bar” for bad diplomatic deals with Iran — undermining Israel and emboldening its enemies in the process.

Schueftan’s comments came shortly after the U.S. and Iran reached a tentative agreement to end the recent fighting and enter into talks. The White House shared in a call with reporters on Wednesday the official text of the memorandum of understanding, to establish a ceasefire with Iran, permanently end Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, reopen the Strait of Hormuz while ending the U.S. naval blockade and kickstart a 60-day negotiation period on the future of Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of lifting U.S. sanctions on Tehran.

On Wednesday morning, Trump said that the U.S. would resume military activity against Iran if he did not like the MOU. 

The deal could lead to confrontation between Israel and the U.S., Schueftan said. “If Israel responds in Lebanon, we have a major problem with the president of the United States,” he said. 

“I don’t believe this will remain because Israel cannot afford tension with the only friend it has on the international arena … this is the worst that can happen from an Israeli point of view,” he continued. “But it will not stop Israel from doing what is vital for the existence of Israel.” 

Schueftan further asserted that Trump betrayed and “abandoned” the Iranian people by failing to deliver on his promise that “help is on the way.” 

“Israel will survive it, but they were reduced,” Schueftan said. He noted achievements in destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities over the past year and policies adopted after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks.

At the same time, he said, “the challenge now is more serious, therefore Israeli actions will have to be more serious, and I don’t believe Trump will go as far as trying to break Israel.” 

From an American perspective, Schueftan continued, such a move would be a strategic error; the U.S., he said, needs to shift its focus away from the Middle East and toward countering China. “Israel should be in a position where it can substitute the United States. When the U.S. leaves the Middle East, you can’t leave the Middle East alone,” said Schueftan. 

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro criticized Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday, arguing that Vance’s support for the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran suggested that he was not serving President Donald Trump well. 

Shapiro made the comments, which mark his most direct criticism to date of Vance’s approach to Iran, to Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum”while offering a harsh assessment of the MOU in the hours after the Trump administration released the text of the agreement. He described the deal as “a disaster” and called out the vice president for his role in leading this particular diplomatic effort.

“The president deciding to go into Iran and to hit nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer and then to go after Iran’s ballistic missile facilities and nuclear facilities, army, navy and air force in this current operation was the signal act of political bravery perhaps of my lifetime,” Shapiro said. 

“With that said, this MOU appears to be, just from the text, a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning,” he continued. “In my opinion, the vice president of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president.”

On his latest podcast episode on Wednesday, Shapiro praised Vance for his appearance on ABC’s “The View” and described him as an “undeniably talented politician,” though he questioned Vance’s decision to appear on Megyn Kelly’s show “to make overtures to Tucker Carlson.”

“Megyn Kelly is a person who has said that the Israelis manipulated the administration into war, who has laughed along to the proposition that the Republican Party is a bunch of Israel-loving pedophiles,” Shapiro said. “This is where the vice president chose to retail the argument.”

Shapiro also disputed Vance’s assertion to Kelly that opponents of the MOU were “promoting endless conflict” in the region. “They don’t have an alternative. If your alternative is just to drop bombs without any clear goal or any clear American interest implicated, then you’re not making wise decisions on behalf of the American people,” Vance said.

“An entire field of strawmen is now burning because this is what we colloquially call a lie. This is a lie,” Shapiro said. “An endless conflict would be, say, a 47-year conflict with an intransigent radical Islamist enemy that wants to destroy America.”

“Some of us have been calling for the president to end this war quickly, like from the beginning,” he continued. “I’ve been saying for literally months that instead of signing onto a useless ceasefire, that we ought to take or bomb Kharg Island, open the Straits with operations like Project Freedom, which the president announced and then unannounced, and then leave overwatch to our allies like Israel and the UAE. That is not an endless war.”

Shapiro went on to detail his objections to the MOU itself in his Fox appearance, arguing that the text of the deal did not address several major sticking points that led to the U.S. launching the war in the first place.

“There were effectively five goals that were set by the administration at the beginning. One was ending the nuclear program, not just nuclear weapons, no nuclear enrichment, zero enrichment. That is not in the deal. Ballistic missiles ended, that is not in the deal,” Shapiro said. “Then you have the support of terrorism, that is not part of the deal, anything that looks like an attempt to end terrorism.” 

“A permanent opening of the Strait of Hormuz toll free, not only is that not in the deal, the deal appears to have a provision allowing Iran and Oman to attempt to toll the Straits after 60 days,” he added. “Then finally, the idea that Iran would receive some sort of sanctions relief after all of those things happened. We are already seeing, from day one, relief in their ability to ship oil out of Iran.”

Shapiro expressed bewilderment at Trump’s comments earlier Wednesday suggesting that the U.S. would not forbid Iran from possessing ballistic missiles and downplaying the threat of the regime continuing to have those weapons — despite it being a key goal in entering the conflict. He also responded to Trump’s criticism of Israel’s conduct in its war against Hezbollah, defending the Israelis and pointing to previous statements by the president in support of Israel’s war aims. 

“The president today suggested that ballistic missiles should actually continue to be held by the Iranians because the Saudis, our allies, also hold ballistic missiles,” Shapiro said. “The fact is that the president himself has suggested that Israel has a right to defend itself. Ambassador [Mike] Huckabee, our ambassador to Israel, has said that Israel has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It’s not the government of Lebanon, and in fact is opposed to the government of Lebanon. They’ve been firing ordnance over the border at Israel for literally years at this point.”

“The idea that Israel should be held back from defending itself against a terror group that is a proxy army of Iran, because we have some sort of deal over the Strait of Hormuz, is a massive tactical blunder that gives Iran one of the things that Iran actually wants, which is to reconstitute its forward operating base in Lebanon,” he continued. “Anything that allows them to reconstitute their terror army would be a huge regional mistake.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered a similar take on Wednesday, arguing that Trump was given “some very poor advice on this deal” while declining to go after the vice president by name.

“Giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. Setting up Iran to be in charge of the Strait of Hormuz in perpetuity, and to charge tolls is not in America’s interest, in my view. The Ayatollah should not reap a single penny from the free transit of the seas,” Cruz told reporters. “I think the president, unfortunately, is receiving bad advice once again.”

Asked if he believes the president should not sign the MOU and abandon peace talks, the Texas senator replied: “That’s a decision he’s going to have to make.”

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son and one of Vance’s closest allies outside the White House, went on to attack Cruz on social media for his criticisms of the agreement.

Trump Jr. accused Cruz of “lying thru [sic] his teeth about the deal,” claiming in a post on X that the U.S. is “not giving them [Iran] a cent and he [Cruz] knows that.” He then alleged Cruz was “using fake news about the peace deal to undermine” the president, which he described as “the opposite of MAGA.”

According to the text of the MOU released on Wednesday, however, the U.S. “undertakes to develop a definitive, mutually agreed reconstruction and economic development plan for the Islamic Republic of Iran valued at a minimum of $300 billion (USD).”

The deal also includes language terminating “all sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran — including UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. primary and secondary sanctions.”

Some Senate Republicans are breaking with President Donald Trump over his handling of Iran, pushing back on the memorandum of understanding’s significant financial relief to the regime and Trump’s comments on Wednesday that he is willing to accept an Iranian ballistic missile program and some level of nuclear enrichment.

“Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” retiring Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said on X. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.”

Cassidy recently voted in favor of war powers resolutions that aimed to prevent further combat operations in Iran. He’s retiring after being defeated by a Trump-backed primary challenger.

“Before the war, the Strait [of Hormuz] was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions and 13 service members were still alive,” Cassidy said. “Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

He subsequently explained to reporters: “Iran went from having sanctions and now is having no sanctions. Hundreds of billions of dollars [are] being paid to it. Our allies are weaker. Our opponent is stronger. You say the strait’s open — the strait was open four months ago.”

Asked whether he thought the deal was worse than the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Cassidy responded, “I didn’t like the JCPOA the first time. I don’t like it the second time.”

While Cassidy was perhaps the most strident critic, numerous Republican senators also expressed their disagreement with Trump’s comments, the deal, or both.

Given that eliminating Iran’s nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile capacity were stated objectives of the war, “$100 billion and 13 lives later, I’ll need to understand that rationalization,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Jewish Insider of Trump’s comments.

He added later that the $300 billion reconstruction fund laid out in the MOU is “concerning,” though he called the deal preliminary and said he needed to see more details.

“I need to see it taken as a whole. I can’t be against it because I need to see the net. I need to see, have we accomplished what the president set out to accomplish?” Tillis continued. “If you remember, we were going to obliterate their military, we were going to take all of the uranium or any weapons grade uranium out of the country — we’re equivocating on that now. I just need to see what the new deal is now.”

He said that, given the costs of the war, “there needs to be some accountability for Iran. We can’t just walk out because we’re getting a bit skittish over the economic consequences of going to war to begin with.”

While Trump argued that Iran should be able to have ballistic missiles because others in the region do as well, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said that the difference is that other countries in the region aren’t American adversaries.

“I would be fine [with them having missiles] if they didn’t want to kill Americans. I don’t care if Saudi Arabia has them, or if Israel has them because they don’t want to kill us,” Scott told JI. “But if somebody wants to kill me, I don’t want them to have a ballistic missile.”

Asked about the financial benefits Iran is set to receive under the deal, Scott said that he does not want any U.S. funding to support Iran, and that Iran should be paying the U.S. reparations instead.

“I’m not spending a dime for Iran. I want them to pay us for what we had to do,” Scott continued.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) warned against giving Iran a financial windfall, though he placed  blame for the situation on those around the president, rather than Trump himself.

“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea,” Cruz said. “I think the President is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”

Cruz said on his podcast that “if this deal is giving them $300 billion, that’s a mistake. I hope that is not the case.” But he also said that it is “absurd” to compare it to the JCPOA in light of the U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

“What I’m urging the president, what I’m saying to him, is don’t give away the victory. I don’t believe he’s doing so, I hope he’s not doing so, I hope his administration is not doing so,” Cruz said. “We have defeated their military, don’t suddenly come in with massive buckets of cash to let them rebuild and become a threat to America again.”

He added on X that the fact that Biden Iran Envoy Rob Malley supported the deal “may be the most serious criticism that can possibly be leveled against it.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) said that “it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to have a ballistic missile program,” though he said he was waiting to see what the text of the deal says on the issue of enrichment. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI, “I don’t feel the same way” as Trump on the missile and enrichment issues.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the most vocal supporters of the Iran war on Capitol Hill, offered his support for the MOU in a lengthy X post following a conversation with special envoy Steve Witkoff.

“It is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the Strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop,” Graham said. “Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying.”

He added that the MOU would also be worthwhile as an “essential step” toward enabling the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, restoring economic stability and ending the war.

Despite that, Graham still broke with Trump on his comments on Iranian nuclear enrichment.

“I’m not OK with nuclear enrichment at all,” Graham said.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has been one of the most vocal GOP advocates for bringing the war to a close, said that he’s “glad the strait is reopening” and “glad that their nuclear program is under rubble and presumably will stay that way.”

“I don’t really want to give them any money,” Hawley continued. “I discourage that. I would not want to do that. But, let’s see what happens and I wish the VP all the best of luck.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told JI he would continue to withhold comment on Iran, the same response he’s been offering to reporters on the deal throughout the week.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that the deal constituted “unconditional surrender … by us, not by Iran,” referencing Trump’s demands earlier in the war.

“There seems to be no objective of this war that has been accomplished and in fact has emboldened Iran internally and strengthened their standing in the world community,” Blumenthal continued. “They’ve taken the best punch we could give them and they seem bolder than ever.”

He said that the financial benefits Iran is set to receive under the MOU “will enable them to support their malign proxies in the region, causing more instability and bloodshed.”

Blumenthal said that Iran’s objectives of “death to America and death to Israel … will only be advanced by this huge amount of money and additional freedom they have to sell their oil with lifting sanctions.”

The Trump administration on Wednesday shared with journalists the official text of the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran to establish a ceasefire with Iran, permanently end Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, reopen the Strait of Hormuz while ending the U.S. naval blockade and kickstart a 60-day negotiation period on the future of Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of lifting U.S. sanctions on Tehran.

The 14-point agreement was read aloud by a senior administration official on a call with reporters. The White House did not provide a written copy of the agreement after the readout. 

Below is the agreement as delivered on the call:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties,” have jointly agreed in good faith on [Date] to the following:

Paragraph 1 – Cessation of Hostilities

The Parties and their respective allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of all military operations on every front, including in Lebanon. The Parties undertake not to initiate any war or military operation against each other, to refrain from the threat or use of force against one another, and to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and will incorporate the other provisions of this paragraph.

Paragraph 2 – Sovereignty and Non-Interference

The Parties undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

Paragraph 3 – Timeline for Final Deal

The Parties commit to negotiating and concluding the final deal within a maximum of 60 days, extendable only by mutual consent.

Paragraph 4 – Naval Blockade and Force Posture

Immediately upon signing this MOU, the United States shall begin removing its naval blockade and any other impediments or disturbances imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, and shall fully lift the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, vessel traffic shall be progressively restored toward pre-war levels. The United States further undertakes to withdraw its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the conclusion of the final deal.

Paragraph 5 – Strait of Hormuz and Maritime Security

Upon signing this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran shall, using its best efforts, arrange for the safe and free passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz with no charge for a period of 60 days, in both directions (Persian Gulf to Sea of Oman and vice versa). Commercial vessel traffic shall resume immediately. Iran shall complete the necessary technical and military measures, including demining, within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will engage in dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman and other Persian Gulf littoral states to define future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in accordance with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states.

Paragraph 6 – Reconstruction and Economic Development

The United States, in coordination with regional partners, undertakes to develop a definitive, mutually agreed reconstruction and economic development plan for the Islamic Republic of Iran valued at a minimum of $300 billion (USD). The implementation mechanism for this plan shall be finalized as part of the final deal within 60 days. The United States shall grant all required licenses, waivers, and permissions necessary for the relevant financial transactions.

Paragraph 7 – Sanctions Termination

The United States undertakes to terminate all sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran — including UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. primary and secondary sanctions — according to an agreed schedule to be included in the final deal. The Parties acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions issue and express their intention to address it immediately in negotiations to reach mutual agreement.

Paragraph 8 – Nuclear Issues

The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The Parties agree to resolve the disposition of Iran’s stockpiled enriched material through a mutually agreed mechanism, with the baseline method being on-site down-blending under IAEA supervision, in accordance with the sanctions-termination schedule in Paragraph 7. The Parties will also discuss Iran’s enrichment activities and other nuclear-related matters within a satisfactory framework to be agreed in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The Parties acknowledge the critical importance of these nuclear issues and intend to address them immediately in negotiations.

Paragraph 9 – Status Quo Pending Final Deal

Pending the final deal, the Parties agree to maintain the status quo: the Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status of its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose any new sanctions or deploy additional forces in the region.

Paragraph 10 – Oil Export Waivers

Immediately upon signing this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of the Treasury shall issue waivers authorizing the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, derivatives, and all associated services (including banking, insurance, and transportation).

Paragraph 11 – Access to Frozen Funds and Assets

The United States shall make fully available all frozen or restricted Iranian funds and assets. Upon implementation of this MOU, the Parties will mutually agree on procedures for the release and use of these funds during negotiations. Such funds shall be usable for payments to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States shall issue all necessary licenses and authorizations to this end.

Paragraph 12 – Monitoring Mechanism

The Parties agree to establish an executive mechanism to monitor the implementation of this MOU and future compliance with the final deal.

Paragraph 13 – Sequencing of Negotiations

After signing this MOU, and subject to the commencement and continued implementation of Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11, the Parties shall begin negotiations on the remaining elements of the final deal.

Paragraph 14 – UN Security Council Endorsement

The final deal shall be endorsed by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution. 

Republican senators said on Tuesday that they’re skeptical that Iran will hold to any commitments it has made or may make in negotiations with the U.S., and urged the administration to release the terms of the memorandum of understanding announced on Sunday.

The administration has not yet communicated any specific plans to brief Congress on the deal.

“Rather than an end to the activities in Iran, I think it’s more of an intermission,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters. “We still haven’t seen what the documents look like, and regardless of what they look like, I don’t think you can trust the Iranian regime.”

Cornyn added, “I need to see the writing — I need to see the print. But I don’t believe that the regime will abide by it.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) emphasized that the U.S. has been in similar positions with Iran before, and that they have not resulted in a viable long-term agreement. He told Jewish Insider that he thinks it’s “generous to call it a deal, it sounds like it’s a deal in progress … and if we’re making progress, that’s good.”

But he said that it’s hard for him to assess an agreement “that we only get described in broad strokes.”

He said he would also be uncomfortable with any arrangement that provided Iran with a financial windfall. Multiple outlets reported Tuesday afternoon that the MOU includes financial incentives for Iran, including lifting various sanctions.

“I’m worried only because at least some of our decisions seem to be affected by the short-term economic impact [of the war], and that’s not a good decision,” Tillis said. “Talking about some of the money that Iran’s going to start receiving. … If all of the sudden we’re pulling back some of the things that were in place even before the operation, I’ve got a real concern because they’re a totalitarian regime.”

He told JI that the U.S.’s current posture and negotiations with Iran make it appear that “we’re willing to accept a totalitarian regime, and so the question is, how does this agreement match up against the original objectives of this initiative” as laid out by the administration at the beginning of the war.

Tillis added that Trump should explain to the country the national security interests and necessities of the U.S. operations against Iran, and that some short-term economic harm might be a consequence of that.

“That should be the case to the American people, and then you stay strong, versus have a sub-optimal or bad deal that actually enriches the very people that you were focused on trying to take out,” Tillis said. “Now that we’re here, you can’t all of a sudden say that because people are really frustrated with gas prices, that the nuclear threat in Iran is a manageable risk, because that is 180 degrees away from the predicate for going in there to begin with.”

Tillis said that the final deal should be made public, or at least shown to members in a classified setting — though he said he was skeptical there was much substance in the page-and-a-half document described by Vice President JD Vance, given its length.

He also reiterated comments from Monday that any final agreement should be subject to ratification by Congress, as the only way to ensure that such a deal would last. 

“Trump could have a real foreign policy legacy but he’s been poorly influenced because he’s just so insecure. I’ve never seen anything like it. His conviction is his own popularity, his own attention, his own credit. It hurts my heart a little,” another Republican senator told JI. “I just was hoping that the second term he wouldn’t do what he’s done, and that is to make it all about himself like his first term.”

“I don’t know what’s in [the MOU],” the senator added. “Don’t trust any senator who says they know what’s in the deal. They don’t know. I mean, none of us know, not really.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told JI the agreement “looks to me like it’s a deal to make a deal.”

“The only facts I know today are that the blockades on both sides have been lifted. We’re supposed to negotiate more over [60] days,” Kennedy continued. “The Iranian government Iran lies like fish swim. I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, whether they will make concessions. The other thing I know is that Iran is immeasurably weaker today than it was a year ago.”

He added that he does not expect that the “religious zealots” in Iran have “had an epiphany” and will give up their nuclear program.

Kennedy said he’s “sure” the text of the deal will be released this week. In the interim, “If you don’t know [what’s in it], you should shut up, and none of us … know what’s in it. I think we ought to wait and see what’s in it first,” Kennedy continued.

Asked about reports that Iran would be receiving up-front sanctions relief as part of the MOU, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, “I’d be surprised, I haven’t seen that. I think we’re all in the position we’d like to see the MOU. Unless there’s something in there that they’ve already changed their ways, I don’t know how you’d be entitled to sanctions relief.”

“I think we’d all like to see it,” Scott reiterated, when asked whether he was concerned the administration hasn’t released the text yet. “Then we’d be able to answer questions on specifics.”

Though some Senate Republicans are eager to see the agreement, there do not yet appear to be any specific plans to brief them on it. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told JI on Tuesday that he was not yet aware of any plans for the administration to brief Congress on the contents of the MOU between the U.S. and Iran, as lawmakers continue to call for transparency on the agreement.

“Not that I’m aware of yet. [I’m] going to find that out,” Thune told JI, when asked whether the administration had notified him of plans to brief lawmakers.

On the other hand, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), said, “The administration probably has a reason for doing what they’re doing. I don’t know what it is, have not been briefed. We’ll all find out on Friday, and then I expect a briefing after that.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) likewise said his understanding is that the text of the agreement will be released after the formal signing ceremony on Friday.

Democrats have also been critical of the administration for failing to release the text of the MOU, and described it as a bad deal — though many say they support an end to the conflict anyway.

 “He has not released text, but we know one thing about this president: if he had a great deal, he’d be jumping up and down, and doing a press event with the text. The fact that he announced the deal, got on a plane, left the country, and is now letting JD Vance explain it tells you everything you need to know,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told JI.

He said he doesn’t expect the administration to come to “consult, brief or include us” in any capacity, including under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

“They should have come to us, consulted us, briefed us and explained to the American people what their objectives were at the outset, but I don’t expect their conduct to be any different at the conclusion, if there is one. This is such an internally flawed arrangement that it seems to be inevitable that it will fall apart in a matter of weeks,” Coons continued.

“Trump must hold a classified meeting on his so-called ‘understanding’ with Iran. He must brief all of Congress,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “He must inform the American people and make the ‘understanding’ public. … Americans need to know how and when this war will truly end.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said that if the deal touches on Iran’s nuclear program, the administration legally has to submit the agreement to Congress, but if the current deal does not include specific commitments on the nuclear program, it may not need to be submitted.

“We’ll know on Friday, and at that point, when it’s all out on the table, I probably have more to say,” Kaine said, declining to comment on potential concessions in the deal until it has been publicized.

Top Trump administration officials shared new details on Monday about the memorandum of understanding reached by the U.S. and Iran over the weekend, arguing that the new agreement is substantially better than the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and could pave the way for a new relationship between Washington and Tehran.

During an interview with CNBC, Vice President JD Vance said he expects the Strait of Hormuz to be opened immediately “in a toll-free way for the long term.” Vance indicated that he has observed more traffic flow in the strait following the announcement of the deal, but that the way in which the strait fully opens will be determined in technical negotiations. 

“What this agreement does is say to the Iranians that ‘You don’t have access to the money to rebuild that nuclear program, but if you’re willing to give up that program long-term, if you’re willing to accept the inspections and verification regime that’s necessary to give us the confidence you’re never going to have a nuclear weapon, then we want you to be a prosperous country, and we will re-invite you into the community of nations,’” Vance said.

Vance said that Iran has agreed to never develop or procure a nuclear weapon and that the U.S. will ensure its stockpile of enriched material is destroyed, adding that technical talks will determine if U.S. ground troops will observe or play an active role in destroying it. He also argued that the latest MOU differs from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed under former President Barack Obama in 2015.

The vice president has stated that Iran’s nuclear program and capacity to enrich uranium have both been devastated by the U.S. and Israeli military campaign. 

“We have comprehensively destroyed their nuclear program, and this agreement is about ensuring that they don’t rebuild it,” Vance said. “The JCPOA was mainly about bribing them to stop the construction or to cease a nuclear program that was already in progress. It’s a very different background, a very different sort of leverage, and I think really a different outcome for the American people.”

Vance also dismissed reports that Iran would receive billions of dollars without the funding being conditioned on the completion of certain steps, a clarification he made during an interview with CBS. 

“When people say that billions of dollars of assets will be released, that’s not true,” Vance said. “What is true is that [there will be] a much better and much more prosperous future if they [Iran] meet the obligations they make in this agreement … that’s one of the things we’re going to work out in the technical talks that will follow the official signing on Friday.”

Vance stressed that the Iranians would attain frozen or other monetary assets only upon meeting verifiable benchmarks. He confirmed that Iran could receive $300 billion in reconstruction funding, as well as $24 billion in frozen assets, but emphasized that the funding would be conditioned on Tehran meeting its obligations.

“It’s set up in such a way where we’re going to have to attach their commitments to deliverables that then are met with economic benefits for the Iranian people,” Vance said on CNN. “On the other hand, if they [Iran] try to rebuild it [their nuclear program] they’re never going to get the financial resources that they would need to rebuild.” 

The vice president said that the U.S. has not expended “a single dollar of sanctions relief or unfrozen assets,” stating that reports otherwise are likely from hardliners “within the Iranian system…in an effort to sell it to certain domestic populations.” 

However, Vance said the U.S. is “open to a lot of things that are on the table.”

“That $24 billion just doesn’t appear anywhere in any of the texts that we’ve talked about with the Iranians,” Vance said. “What we have said is that we’re willing to talk about unfreezing assets, but a much, much bigger deal is un-sanctioning their economy, so long as they make the long-term commitments on the nuclear program.”

When asked whether the agreement would require Iran to halt support for U.S.-designated terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, Vance indicated that it would, although the specific wording in the agreement appeared to be vague.

“What paragraph one of the agreement says is effectively that Iran commits itself, just as the United States commits itself, to regional peace and stability and part of that is that the Iranians have to stop funding violent terrorist organizations,” Vance said. “They know that we don’t want them to fund terrorist organizations..and be a source of instability in the region.”

The vice president touted the “level of direct connection” established through the latest negotiations, noting that “the people at the highest levels of the United States government are talking to the people at the highest levels of the Iranian government.”

“This is a very interesting thing about these negotiations, is you see people, both the hardliners, but also the more political people, saying, ‘Our relationship with the United States over the past 47 years has been a mistake. Let’s turn over a new leaf,’” he added.

A senior administration official told reporters on Monday that an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon would not be part of the deal, despite Iranian officials’ insistence that it would be included.

The senior administration official confirmed that nuclear discussions would likely occur first and said the agreement “contemplates” the reduction of U.S. military forces in the region “upon the agreement of a final deal.” However, the official noted that Iran will need to “make some concessions and give up some of their activities and some of their nuclear program.”

A senior U.S. official called out “hardliners on both sides,” saying that they are rooting against “compromise” and “making a lot of noise.”

“There’s a lot of misinformation out there,” the official said. “I think that in any field that I’ve been involved in, I would say nobody roots for the referee. There’s not really a constituency for compromise. So what you’re seeing now is that the hardliners on both sides…we have certain people in the American system who say there’s no deal you could ever do with Iran ever, are obviously making a lot of noise.”

While the full details of the MOU have yet to be released, President Donald Trump indicated on Monday that he expects the document to be made public “sometime after Friday.” 

“I want it to be released because it is a really powerful document,” Trump told reporters during a bilateral meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the G7 summit in France. “It is not like the Obama documents.”

However, Trump warned that should the deal fall apart, tensions between the U.S. and Iran could return to “where we started.”

“We have done a great job and hopefully it is going to be a good relationship, and we are going to get along,” Trump said. “If we don’t, we go back to where we started, but I don’t think that is necessary.”

Despite initially conflicting claims emerging from the White House and Iranian state media about the contents and timing of a memorandum of understanding between the parties, there were indications on Friday that the gaps between the two sides could be closing. 

Prime Minister of Pakistan Shehbaz Sharif confirmed that a “final and agreed version of the peace agreement has been achieved,” while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X that the memorandum of understanding “has never been closer,” a screenshot of which President Donald Trump reposted directly onto Truth Social.

Terms of the deal, first reported by Axios, include that the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened immediately without tolls and that the ceasefire would be extended for 60 days, including halting Israel’s military action in Lebanon. While the current text includes a framework for addressing Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, any binding restrictions on its nuclear development would depend on a second, more detailed accord, according to the outlet. 

A White House official indicated on Friday that under the broader terms being discussed, Iran’s nuclear material would eventually be destroyed and removed from the country, its nuclear program dismantled and its funding of regional militant groups halted. Frozen Iranian assets would be released upon verified performance of those key metrics. 

Iranian state media, however, had reported a vastly different version of the deal, in which Iran would retain control over the strait and receive $300 million from the U.S. for reconstruction, as well as the suspension of sanctions and withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region — among other U.S. concessions. 

Trump rebuffed news of the deal’s provisions on Truth Social, writing that “the terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing.” Trump reportedly had asked the Iranians to issue public clarification over the Iranian state media reports. 

“Very dishonorable people to deal with,” Trump said of the Iranians. “With them, there is no such thing as dealing in good faith.”

Vice President JD Vance also rejected what he called “fake information,” and reiterated that “the president is going to get us a good outcome, one way or the other.” 

“First, the Iranians are not receiving any cash, and no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting,” Vance posted on X. “The deal is structured to ensure that the U.S. and its allies’ concerns are prioritized, and that if the Islamic Republic of Iran meets its obligations, then economic benefits will flow to them and to the entire region.”

Araghchi said that pending the finalization of an agreement, “the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content.”

Reports indicate that while the deal has been approved at high levels of Iranian leadership, it has not yet received official clearance from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, despite Trump asserting he believes Khamenei had given the nod.

The sudden diplomatic momentum dramatically reshaped military operations on Thursday, when Trump ordered the Pentagon to call off scheduled airstrikes and a mission to capture Iran’s vital oil infrastructure on Kharg Island after announcing a deal was close at hand. The president hinted that a formal signing ceremony could take place over the weekend at a neutral venue in Europe, with Vance and White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff expected to attend.

“It seems that after repeated signs of an imminent deal for weeks now, a deal will be clear once U.S. and Iranian officials actually publicly agree to the same agreement,” Ari Cicurel, associate director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Jewish Insider. “Until then, it’s not clear that they actually have a deal yet.”

Cicurel noted, however, that the latest reports of an accord appear different from previous iterations throughout the conflict. He said he has seen “reports of [U.S. Air Force] aircraft heading to Europe,” which “could be a sign this is further down the road than previous efforts might have been.”

Foreign policy experts have expressed deep concern about the reported framework floated by the Iranian side, with several backing the Trump administration’s claims that it does not reflect the actual state of negotiations.

“I have been calling for Trump to accept the inevitable bad deal to get us out of this bad war. But even I think the absurd terms laid out here [in Iranian media reports] must represent Iranian spin and cannot possibly be the shape of the actual deal,” Dan Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel under the Biden administration, posted on X.

Richard Goldberg, a former Trump administration official, also expressed skepticism about the initial reporting coming out of Tehran.

“The reported MOU reads like an extortion racket guaranteed to preclude any nuclear concessions and instead lock the U.S. into paying the racket indefinitely for fear of the strait closing,” Goldberg posted on X. “It falls well below anything POTUS would consider a good deal so I question its veracity.”

“The claims that Iran made, if they’re anywhere near true, would be a disastrous agreement that would be rewarding Iranian aggression, providing it funds to further enable its aggression and rebuild its arsenal,” Cicurel said similarly. “The same leadership, the same regime that has been in charge of the proxy agents and conducted aggression against the United States and its partners remains in power.”

However, Cicurel noted that he also holds major concerns regarding the framework being presented by the White House — most notably, that negotiators have failed to address Iran’s missile capabilities.

“My main concern with the White House agreement is that with this proposal, and over the last few weeks, the discussion of Iran’s missile capabilities has disappeared from the conversation, which was a major mistake of the JCPOA and a major mistake of previous agreements,” Cicurel said. “Any agreement that doesn’t include that would enable Iran to take the lessons it’s learned from the current war — that it doesn’t need a lot of missiles, it doesn’t need a lot of drones to exert aggression on the Gulf — and leave a potentially dangerous situation over the long term, in the future.”

Cicurel also took issue with the White House’s indication that the MOU would launch another 60-day ceasefire, warning that the time would allow Iran to delay a durable, long-term settlement and gain leverage. He also argued that the U.S. should not release Iranian assets.

“I don’t think the United States should be unfreezing assets rewarding Iran for for its aggression and allow Iran to leverage its power projection over the Strait of Hormuz to extract financial gains that would enable it to rebuild itself to reassert more of that power projection over the Strait of Hormuz and further attack targets throughout the Middle East,” he said. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he wants to start the process of winding down U.S. aid to Israel in the final two years of the Trump administration, as both countries work on a new memorandum of understanding.

Netanyahu made the comments in an interview with CNBC’s Sara Eisen after being asked about his political future and when Israel would be ready for new leadership. The prime minister responded by noting that while the Israeli people could decide at “any time” to remove him from power, he is currently focused on achieving four objectives: “finish[ing] the security envelope that we have to make vis-à-vis Iran and its proxies”; securing more investments globally to expand Israel’s AI and tech sectors; normalizing relations with several countries in the Middle East; and ending Israel’s reliance on U.S. aid. 

“The other thing I want to do is move away, in America, from aid to partnership. We’re now working on a memorandum of understanding, which will bring down the aid,” Netanyahu said. “I want it to start now, I want it to start in the last two years of the Trump administration and I want it to keep going down, coming to zero, because I think we’ve come of age.” 

The current MOU, which provides Israel with $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid annually, runs through FY 2028. Netanyahu did not clarify whether he would like to see aid begin to wind down through changes to the current agreement, or whether he is focused on ongoing negotiations for the next one.

“Israel has a robust economy, and I want us to go from aid to a partnership where we both invest equal amounts and both share equally in the fruits of our innovators and technologies,” he continued. “I think that’s very, very important. It will also take away the myth that Israel is depleting America’s coffers.”

Netanyahu has said on multiple occasions since January that he hopes to wean Israel off of U.S. aid, initially suggesting in January that Israel would work to end U.S. aid within the next ten years. He pitched the aid drawdown to President Donald Trump in late December, an idea the president was initially bewildered by and not supportive of. 

Netanyahu also downplayed reports that Trump told him he is “f***ing crazy” in a phone call on Monday about Israel’s military escalation in Lebanon and rejected the notion that his relationship with the president had shifted, noting that the two speak as frequently as “every two days.” 

Still, he did not deny that the conversation occurred as reported.

“Sometimes we have, as in the best of families, you have these tactical disagreements. We always find a way to work them out and we do so as great friends,” Netanyahu said. “We can disagree in the morning, and by the afternoon we have common action.”

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said on X that the next U.S. memorandum of understanding with Israel will end U.S. aid to Israel in favor of prioritizing trade.

“Israel receives $3.8 billion but spends far more than that buying US military goods. US also receives intel, tech innovations so that ROI is many times more,” Huckabee said on his personal account on X, responding to former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent, who had argued in an interview that U.S. aid to Israel does not confer benefits to America. “New MOU w/ Israel ends aid & will be based on trade.”

Analysts have widely predicted that the next MOU, after the current one ends in 2028, will prioritize partnership programs jointly funded by both sides — which constitute a portion of current U.S. assistance to Israel — rather than direct financial aid, but the comments by Huckabee appear to be the first confirmation from a U.S. official that such plans are in the works.

Huckabee’s comments did not make clear whether the next agreement would phase out aid gradually or immediately.

The comments also come following repeated declarations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he wants to end U.S. financial assistance to Israel in the next decade, and on a backdrop of growing skepticism of U.S. aid to Israel on both sides of the aisle.

Prominent pro-Israel Republicans have endorsed Netanyahu’s effort to wind down U.S. aid.

But some critics of current U.S. aid are not likely to be satisfied by a shift to a cooperative model, or any system in which the U.S. continues to supply funding that benefits Israel’s defense.

Late last month, AIPAC circulated what seemed at first glance like a relatively anodyne memo stressing its support for the current 10-year memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel, which guarantees $3.8 billion in annual military aid and missile-defense funding to Israel through 2028.

“Congress must fulfill America’s commitment by providing full security assistance and missile defense funding to Israel for the remainder of the MOU,” the group wrote in its missive published on April 28. 

The memo was notable, however, for what it left out: calling to negotiate a follow-up MOU — the future of which has been a topic of ongoing speculation among analysts and lawmakers beginning to think about the contours of a potential new agreement in a changing political landscape.

That AIPAC had only urged the implementation of the final two years of the current deal was in many ways a tacit acknowledgement of shifting attitudes against U.S. military aid even among supporters of Israel.

The omission, intentional or not, was otherwise reflective of uncertainty around an agreement that has drawn scrutiny not only among Israel critics on the far left and right but also moderate defenders of Israel in both parties who are openly questioning the necessity of U.S. military assistance to a longstanding Middle East ally.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for winding down U.S. financial aid over the next decade, saying that the Jewish state has “come of age” and matured economically to continue on its own. In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” earlier this month, he confirmed that he wanted to immediately begin the process of weaning Israel off of U.S. aid, noting the future of the U.S.-Israel alliance should be focused on joint projects equally funded by Israel and the United States.

“Each U.S.-Israel MOU to date — negotiated by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama — has laid the framework for the decade ahead, strengthening an alliance that advances American interests, supports a strong and capable ally in an unstable region, and drives a remarkable ecosystem of joint development and cooperation between two reliable allies,” Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, told Jewish Insider in a recent statement.  

Some pro-Israel Republican lawmakers — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), the Senate majority leader, and Roger Wicker (R-MS) — have welcomed the idea, even as the GOP has long touted its staunch support for such funding. Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor and Democratic presidential prospect who holds close personal ties to Israel, has advocated for immediately ending military aid to Israel, arguing it is not worth expending the “political capital” to promote spending that is facing mounting opposition in Congress and among voters.

But Jewish and pro-Israel groups seem at pains to clarify how they are now assessing an issue that has long been key to their advocacy — particularly as the conversation around such funding and the possibility for a new MOU, which remains an open question, has rapidly evolved in recent months.

“Each U.S.-Israel MOU to date — negotiated by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama — has laid the framework for the decade ahead, strengthening an alliance that advances American interests, supports a strong and capable ally in an unstable region, and drives a remarkable ecosystem of joint development and cooperation between two reliable allies,” Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, told Jewish Insider in a recent statement.  

She added, “We appreciate the Trump administration working closely with the Israeli government toward a new agreement that will strengthen and define the mutually beneficial partnership in the years ahead.”

“We’re figuring it out ourselves,” said Michael Makovsky, the president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, adding that he believed Israel “made a mistake” in choosing to forgo U.S. financial aid. He suggested that the U.S. sign “one more” MOU with Israel to cover the next 10 years and help Israel replenish its munitions stocks amid the war against Iran, which he believes is key to advancing American interests in the region. “It zeroes down at the very end,” he explained to JI.

In lieu of an agreement, Makovsky floated “non-monetary” alternatives, for instance, a U.S.-Israel mutual defense treaty — though he questioned whether such a pact could gain enough support in the Senate, where most Democrats recently voted in favor of resolutions to block arms sales to Israel.

Former U.S. and Israeli officials have also recently called for building closer technological ties between the two countries, in anticipation of an era in which financial aid is not a defining feature of the alliance.

“The model in which Israel is assisted by the United States and receives aid has a very small chance of continuing under any future administration,” former IDF intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said this month while promoting a new strategic technology alliance with Tom Nides, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. “And perhaps even under the Trump administration, so we need to find a new basis for the relationship that is a transition from aid to partnership.”

Even as analysts had indicated last year that the U.S. should begin considering what the next MOU entails, it is unclear if the process is now seriously underway, as Netanyahu’s remarks have complicated the effort. One Hill staffer to a pro-Israel House member told JI he had no knowledge of discussions at the moment.

President Donald Trump was initially surprised when Netanyahu first proposed winding down U.S. funding late last year and did not immediately lend support to the move, JI has previously reported. 

A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the prospects for a future MOU, the framework for which first went into effect in 1998 during the Clinton administration. The current agreement was finalized in 2016 near the end of the Obama administration — which touted the deal as “the largest single pledge of military assistance in U.S. history” at the time.

Tal Naim, a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, referred JI to Netanyahu’s comments to “60 Minutes” this month.

Looking ahead, Brian Romick, the president of Democratic Majority for Israel, said “there can and should be a discussion about how the U.S.-Israeli security relationship should change with the times, how our partnership must evolve as Israel’s own capabilities grow and its security needs change, and how we can align on a long-term vision for the region.”

“While a new MOU should reflect that Israel’s economy has grown, it should also recognize that Israel’s defense requirements have too, and Israel may struggle to fill the gap in its defense budget that the loss of FMF would create,” Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power who specializes in U.S.-Israel security cooperation, said.

But, he added, “that debate must bring a serious analysis grounded in prioritizing America’s interests and Israel’s security. It cannot shift with political changes or in the middle of a war, especially when American troops are actively deployed in the region. Ultimately this will be a negotiated agreement between two democratically elected governments.”

A spokesperson for the American Jewish Committee likewise used broad strokes to discuss a future MOU, saying it is “far more than a financial commitment.”

The agreement “is a cornerstone of a broader strategic relationship that advances both U.S. and Israeli national security interests, strengthens deterrence against shared adversaries, and reinforces America’s commitment to the security of its closest ally in the Middle East,” the spokesperson told JI. “At a time of growing regional volatility and evolving security threats, maintaining strong and sustained U.S.-Israel security cooperation remains critically important.” 

Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power who specializes in U.S.-Israel security cooperation, said that “there will likely be a new, heavily modified MOU following the current agreement’s expiration.” 

Netanyahu, he told JI, “already revealed his desire to phase out American military aid, granted primarily as Foreign Military Financing,” which typically must be used to purchase U.S. defense products and services.

“While a new MOU should reflect that Israel’s economy has grown, it should also recognize that Israel’s defense requirements have too, and Israel may struggle to fill the gap in its defense budget that the loss of FMF would create,” Leopold-Cohen said.

Dan Shapiro, a U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration who served as a top defense official in the Biden administration, speculated that “the next MOU — if there is an MOU — will look very different from the current one.”

“It will likely phase out FMF, which both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Americans from the left and right are calling for,” Shapiro added. “It will likely emphasize joint research and development, sharing technological advances, and expanded co-production to answer President Trump’s question of what’s in it for the United States. To garner bipartisan support, it should include a consultative mechanism to ensure U.S. weapons are only used in ways consistent with American laws and values and that minimize civilian casualties.”

Daniel Silverberg, a former top foreign policy advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), characterized the MOU as “mutually beneficial,” saying that “it does not need to be exclusively assistance-based.”

“There are many ways to expand cooperation that involve more than giving aid,” he said. “The MOU is a key framework to do so, and it’s crucial to spell that out for a skeptical U.S. audience.”

But, he emphasized to JI, “We can’t want the MOU more than the Israelis want it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel is seeking to end the military assistance it receives from the U.S. in the next 10 years, a move that he said is “in the works.”

In an interview with The Economist released Friday, Netanyahu said that during his December visit to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., he told Trump that Israel “very deeply appreciate[s] the military aid that America has given us over the years.”

But, he said, “we’ve come of age and we’ve developed incredible capacity. And our economy, which will reach, certainly within a decade, will reach about a trillion dollars — it’s not a huge economy, but it’s not a small economy. So I want to taper off military aid within the next 10 years.”

“And that’s not saying that I don’t want to fight for the allegiance and support of the American people — I do, you would have to be crazy not to,” Netanyahu continued.

“You want to taper it off to zero?” Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist, asked.

“Yes,” Netanyahu said.

“That would be a very dramatic shift,” Beddoes responded.

“Well, it’s in the works,” the prime minister replied.

Israel and the U.S. currently have a 10-year memorandum of understanding that provides Israel with $3.8 billion of security assistance annually, through 2028. Negotiations to establish the next MOU are underway.

With Israel’s current 10-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. set to expire in 2028, Jerusalem is reportedly seeking a renewed and expanded agreement that would run through 2048 — though questions remain over the deal’s final framework and the future of U.S.-Israel assistance. 

The current memorandum between the two countries was signed in 2016 under President Barack Obama and provides Israel with $3.8 billion in military aid and missile-defense funding annually. 

The first 10-year framework agreement between the two countries, for $21.3 billion, went into effect in 1998, during the Clinton administration. The second, for $32 billion, began in 2008 under President George W. Bush. 

Israel is looking to finalize a new 20-year agreement that entails more in annual assistance, with hopes of securing the deal within the next year. Negotiations were previously delayed due to the war in Gaza; however, Israeli and U.S. officials confirmed to Axios that initial discussion began in recent weeks. In an interview with journalist Erin Molan last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the Axios report, however, “I don’t know what they’re talking about. My direction is the exact opposite.”

“MOU negotiations typically take a long time, and waiting for both countries to get through their respective 2026 elections puts the start of these talks well into fiscal year 2027,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If there are going to be changes in the funding levels, Israeli and American budgeteers will want this information as early as possible.”

“If the Israelis have any concerns about the strength of support in the U.S. or in the subsequent administrations, securing an agreement now is smart,” said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “2028 is an election year, and it’s better to resolve this now. In addition, they may believe that President Trump will be friendlier than any likely successor.”

In his second term, President Donald Trump’s administration has significantly reduced foreign aid spending, and members of both parties have become increasingly skeptical of U.S. assistance to Israel. 

Experts argued that it would be in Israel’s best interest to secure a deal now amid the uncertainty over future support from U.S. officials. Stroul said Israel “may be calculating that it is better to get out ahead of this trend and lock in U.S. commitments before the midterm elections.”

“If the Israelis have any concerns about the strength of support in the U.S. or in the subsequent administrations, securing an agreement now is smart,” said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “2028 is an election year, and it’s better to resolve this now. In addition, they may believe that President Trump will be friendlier than any likely successor.”

Chuck Freilich, Israel’s former deputy national security advisor and an associate professor of political science at Columbia University, echoed those sentiments, and said the agreement will not be a “done deal” as it has been in the past. 

“I don’t think it’s going to be easy this time,” Freilich told Jewish Insider. 

“It’ll still be a very tough sell,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Israel’s solid value proposition as a U.S. partner falls flat with Trump’s base, which tends to reject the premise that we need strong international partnerships.”

Abrams, who served under several Republican presidents, including as Iran envoy during the first Trump administration, said that despite growing skepticism, he does not view the right wing as a problem to Israel’s security agreement ambitions.

“Trump has been insistent that he and he alone defines what MAGA means,” said Abrams. “I don’t think the problem will be the Trump administration or the MAGA voters, who in all polls are strongly supportive of Israel. It will be the Democrats, whose representatives in Congress have cast votes in the last two years that suggest limiting aid to Israel.”

However, some experts argue that such a package still might not be palatable to the MAGA base. 

“It’ll still be a very tough sell,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Israel’s solid value proposition as a U.S. partner falls flat with Trump’s base, which tends to reject the premise that we need strong international partnerships.”

In response to debates over foreign aid, Israel’s proposal reportedly includes “America First” provisions, designed to appeal to the president and his base. This includes using some of the money for joint U.S.-Israeli research and development, rather than direct military aid. 

“The reported changes deal with development and duration,” said David May, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The new MOU would include provisions for funding joint U.S.-Israel research and development projects. Israeli research and ingenuity are part of what makes the relationship so beneficial for the United States, so it is natural to emphasize this fruitful aspect.”

Stroul said these parts of the proposed framework would benefit both parties moving forward.

“Israel and the U.S. can clearly benefit from more co-production, and more joint research,” said Stroul. “The U.S. military should already be learning from the IDF, who are coming out of two years of continuous, multi-front, all-domain warfare, including establishing complete air superiority over Iran.”

“The reality is that military aid is spent in the United States after approval by the U.S. government,” Stroul added. “This is critical for maintaining military production lines in the U.S.  Trump is focused on revitalizing U.S. manufacturing and industry, and creating jobs for Americans. His team is focused on upgrading and streamlining the defense industry. President Trump has a solid track record of bucking the voices in his MAGA coalition questioning Israel and U.S. commitments in the Middle East when it works for Americans.”

U.S. aid agreements are viewed in Israel as vital to preserving its qualitative military edge over regional adversaries. Washington has either jointly developed or financed all three layers of Israel’s missile-defense architecture — the short-range Iron Dome, medium-range David’s Sling and long-range Arrow systems.

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. aid since 1946 and remains among the top recipients of U.S. arms sales. Brad Bowman, a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the perception that U.S. foreign assistance to Israel is a gift with no return on investment is a misguided approach.

“I think there’s a misperception in some circles in Washington that this is like a charity handout,” said Bowman. “Americans get far more than we give in the relationship with Israel. Some of our allies and partners actually know how to throw a punch against common adversaries, and I put Israel near the top of that list. So when you have an ally or partner like that helping them throw more effective punches it is not charity. It’s a wise investment.”

“Remarkably, the U.S.-Israel defense partnership has only deepened over the past two years despite increasing criticism of its approach to Gaza,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It would be an unmistakable signal to Iran and its degraded network for the U.S to signal through a longer MOU that it will continue to stand with, and invest in, Israeli’s offensive and defensive capabilities.”

By strengthening Israel, Bowman argues that American diplomacy is reinforced and Iran is likely to take the U.S. “more seriously.” 

While U.S. aid once accounted for a large share of Israel’s defense budget, it has declined in recent years as Israel’s economy and domestic defense industry have expanded. Still, Israel depends on American weaponry and security assistance.

“Remarkably, the U.S.-Israel defense partnership has only deepened over the past two years despite increasing criticism of its approach to Gaza,” said Stroul. “It would be an unmistakable signal to Iran and its degraded network for the U.S to signal through a longer MOU that it will continue to stand with, and invest in, Israeli’s offensive and defensive capabilities.”

Analysts said Israel’s reliance on U.S. defense systems is not likely to fade anytime soon, expressing that security ties between Washington and Jerusalem will remain indispensable, even as Israel works to grow its domestic defense capabilities.

“Israel learned from the Gaza war that it needs to manufacture what it can at home — some forms of ammunition, for example — and stockpile what it can,” said Abrams. “But it cannot be independent from the U.S. because it does not manufacture jets or much of the ordinance they use, as well as other weapons systems.”

Bowman echoed these sentiments, telling JI that Israel is “never going to be completely independent in terms of producing its own weapons.” 

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denied reports about the framework of a new aid agreement, and has increased calls for an “independent” defense industry. 

“Netanyahu may want to deny it at the moment until he wraps things up with Trump,” said Freilich. “This may have gotten out earlier than he wanted it to, and maybe in a way that he didn’t want it to.”

Freilich said that Trump is unlikely to approve just “any new deal,” and said Israel will need to prepare for a future in which it gradually weans off U.S. assistance.

“[Israel’s] not going to be able to get massive aid forever — at some point it has to end,” Freilich said. “You have to differentiate between the financial aspect and the arms supply aspect. Israel will depend on American weapons for the very long term, if not forever. But that doesn’t mean they have to be funded forever by the U.S.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed a memorandum of understanding with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright on Tuesday, advancing U.S. and Israeli cooperation in energy and artificial intelligence research and integrating AI into the Abraham Accords.

“Artficial intelligence is the thrust of innovation now and will create unbelievable things in the future,” Netanyahu said during the signing ceremony at the Blair House in Washington. “It’s both challenging, because there could be bad things in it, but there could be unimaginable good things. I think we can lead this.”

The MOU calls for integrating artificial intelligence into the power grids of the U.S. and Israel, in addition to building joint policies around artificial intelligence usage. Regional agreements, including the Abraham Accords and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, will also be strengthened through the memorandum, according to a press release from the Prime Minister’s Office.

The move comes on the heels of the AI giant Nvidia announcing it will expand its presence in Israel, including opening a new R&D center, and the company’s acquisition of Israeli AI start-up Run:ai for $700 million.

During the ceremony, U.S. officials touted the benefits of the MOU, including minimizing the dangers within developing advanced AI models and its security-focused applications.

“This step takes us into the future around collaboration because we know that defense would not be working without artificial intelligence,” Burgum said. “But all the incredible technological leadership, the great entrepreneurship, the incredible startup community that’s strong and vibrant in Israel, all of this bodes well for the future. The first kind of agreement that Chris [Wright] and I have signed with any country is this one and we think it’s a great place to start.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed on Wednesday that the memorandum of understanding between the Trump administration and Qatar for the gift of a luxury jet worth $400 million to join the Air Force One fleet has not been completed and signed.

Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine were pressed repeatedly on the terms of the contract allowing for the U.S. to formally accept the Boeing 747 jumbo jet from Qatar while testifying before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on the Pentagon’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget. The two largely declined to answer questions on the subject given the public setting, though the defense secretary acknowledged that the MOU was still being worked on.

“Any specifics about future aircraft that could be Air Force One can’t be discussed here, but there is a conversation about a memorandum of understanding. A memorandum of understanding remains to be signed,” Hegseth said in response to Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asking if the U.S. was currently in possession of the jet.

Hegseth declined to answer Reed’s subsequent questions about the price of the contract to reconfigure the aircraft, saying he would provide it to the senator’s office but could not divulge that information in public. He offered the same response when Reed asked about the delivery time for the reconfiguration contract. 

Reed pointed out that the terms of the contract originally signed with Boeing to deliver the next Air Force One jets were public while criticizing the secrecy around this deal. 

“The Boeing information was public knowledge — the delivery date, the cost, the course overruns — but this is not, because this is not only a bad deal for the American public, it is just gratifying the presidency, that’s all it is,” Reed said.

Later in the hearing, Hegseth again confirmed to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) that the MOU was still not signed. The Connecticut senator then pressed the defense secretary on the need for the Qatari jet, noting that the extensive modifications and security enhancements may keep it from being usable before Boeing’s new fleet of Air Force Ones are ready in 2028. 

“It doesn’t stand to reason that you will be able to retrofit the plane from Qatar much sooner than 2028 so I’m trying to understand what the gap is that we’re trying to fill. If this contract ends up being a half a billion dollars and the gap only ends up being six months, that doesn’t sound like a wise investment for this committee to make,” Murphy said.

Hegseth replied by pointing to the repeated delays from Boeing in delivering on their new fleet. “I don’t know that’s a firm fixed date yet, unfortunately, that can be counted on,” Hegseth said.

A senior Air Force official testified at a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last month that Boeing had told the service that it could potentially deliver the fleet by 2027 if certain requirements were lifted.

After Hegseth told Murphy it was his understanding that the plane would be transferred to Trump’s presidential library at the conclusion of his term, the Connecticut senator replied: “Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of $1 billion on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transferred directly to the president?”

Hegseth emphasized the importance of the modifications to “ensure the safety and security of the president of the United States,” but did not address Murphy’s question directly. 

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) pressed Hegseth on whether the Department of Defense or the Qataris initiated conversations about the jet and how the transaction came to be. Hegseth said he would need to “go back and review” the details and did not go into specifics, to which Schatz asked, “I think it kind of matters who’s asking, doesn’t it?”

“I think this is illegal and unconstitutional and I won’t rant about that, but I actually think from the standpoint of our collective responsibilities it very much matters what the paper flow was. Who started these conversations? Did it come out of the White House, did it come out of the secretary of state or the president or the SEC Def [secretary of defense] or at a lower level or ambassadors?” Schatz asked. 

“We’re entitled to know, because we can agree or disagree about the propriety of this, but my basic request of you is that if we’re going to disagree, let’s disagree with the same set of facts. Let’s have the documentation on the Qatari aircraft,” he continued.