A bipartisan group of nine House members wrote to the Trump administration on Friday emphasizing — as the administration continues to push for a nuclear deal — that U.S. negotiators must not allow Iran to maintain any nuclear enrichment capacity if a deal is reached. 

An early draft of the letter circulated by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Don Bacon (R-NE) prior to Israel’s strikes on Iran on Friday forcefully condemned the administration over reports that it had proposed allowing Iran to temporarily maintain low-level enrichment, criticizing that proposal as weaker and more dangerous than the original nuclear deal, and describing the talks as an Iranian delay tactic.

The finalized letter, which follows a similar communique from a bipartisan group of members earlier this month, again highlights that the administration will face vocal opposition on both sides of the aisle if it agrees to a deal that allows Iran to maintain a pathway toward a nuclear weapon.

“[Israel’s] decisive action comes after two months of unsuccessful diplomacy and represents a critical chance to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” the final version of the letter reads. “Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear arms, combined with its long record of fueling violence through terrorist proxies, has brought this moment upon itself.”

The letter argues that the U.S. must insist upon “zero enrichment, zero pathway to a nuclear weapon” and warns that any nuclear deal that does not meet those benchmarks “will face strong bipartisan opposition in Congress.”

The letter states that Iran “spent decades deceiving the international community and using diplomacy as a delay tactic while building the capacity to produce nuclear weapons” and describes the Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear, military and critical infrastructure sites as “an opportunity to bring an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions by ensuring their complete dismantlement in negotiations.”

The lawmakers said that they are “deeply concerned by Iran’s continued use of stalling tactics,” calling the talks an effort to buy time to avoid snapback of United Nations sanctions and rebuild Iran’s nuclear program. They noted that the Trump administration’s own two-month deadline for talks had already passed.

“It is time Iran makes a decision — make meaningful concessions or face crushing diplomatic pressure in addition to Israel’s military pressure,” the lawmakers wrote, urging the administration to work with allies to reimpose sanctions by next month — in advance of the October deadline.

The finalized letter was led by Gottheimer and Bacon and co-signed by Democratic Reps. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Darren Soto (D-FL).

The previous version of the letter, drafted and circulated by Gottheimer and Bacon prior to the beginning of the Israeli campaign, more directly criticized the administration and its reported proposal to allow Iran to maintain some level of enrichment in an interim capacity.

“Such a proposal undermines U.S. national security and the security of our allies in the region,” the draft read. “The Iranian regime cannot be trusted … The Iranian regime must not be permitted to enrich uranium on its soil, at any level, under any circumstances.”

“We are deeply concerned that the United States is even entertaining proposals that would enable any form of enrichment — particularly one that involves U.S. assistance to build nuclear reactors in Iran and allows enrichment until a regional enrichment consortium facility is built, something Iran will demand is on their soil,” the draft continued.

The draft framed the delays and that proposal, as outlined, as “not just weaker than the JCPOA but far more dangerous,” referring to the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, imposing fewer restrictions and greater concessions than the original 2015 nuclear deal at a time when Iran is only weeks from nuclear breakout.

It argued that a deal should also address Iran’s support for terrorism, something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, as recently as last month, has not been part of talks.

“If Iran refuses, we must return to a policy of maximum pressure and strategic deterrence,” the draft read. “The Iranian regime responds only to strength — not appeasement.”

The draft stated that the negotiations bore the hallmarks of Iranian obstructionism and stalling tactics.

“Iran continues to slow-walk negotiations, refusing to make meaningful concessions — all while continuing to grow its stockpile of enriched uranium,” the draft read. “If this process feels like a delay tactic, that is because it is.”

The draft also condemned Trump’s discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin about joining the nuclear talks as “not only naïve, [but] incredibly dangerous.”

“Putin is openly allied with Iran and is actively engaged himself in an unprovoked war in Ukraine,” the draft  read. “Asking for Putin’s help in securing a nuclear deal with Tehran risks legitimizing the actions of both regimes and could invite further instability.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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