A day before U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, Vice President JD Vance urged the Iranian regime on Wednesday to take President Donald Trump’s diplomatic overtures “seriously,” cautioning that the president has “a number of tools at his disposal” to keep the “craziest and worst regime in the world” from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Vance made the comments while appearing on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” after being asked about Trump’s comments at the State of the Union on Tuesday night, during which the president underscored his willingness to use force while acknowledging his preference for a diplomatic solution. 

“The president has been as crystal clear as he could be: Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. That would be the ultimate military objective if that’s the route that he chose,” Vance said. “That is what we’re trying to accomplish, as the president said, through the preferred route of diplomacy, but it’s very simple: We have to get to a position where Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, cannot threaten the world with nuclear terrorism.”

“I think most Americans understand that you can’t let the craziest and worst regime in the world have nuclear weapons. That’s what the president is accomplishing, that’s what the president has set as our goal,” he continued. “He’s going to try to accomplish it diplomatically, but as we all know, the president has a number of other tools at his disposal to ensure this doesn’t happen. He’s shown a willingness to use them, and I hope the Iranians take it seriously in their negotiations tomorrow because that’s certainly what the president prefers.”

Asked if that meant the president’s position is that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must be removed, Vance reiterated that the administration is “hopeful that we’re able to come to a good resolution without the military, but if we have to use the military, the president, of course, has that right as well.”

“I think the president ultimately will make the decision about how to ensure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, but we’re sitting down having another round of diplomatic talks with the Iranians, trying to reach a reasonable settlement, but a reasonable settlement towards what end?” Vance asked. “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple. I think the supreme leader and everybody in their system should understand it. We’ve been crystal clear.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), meanwhile, warned on Wednesday that he would not support a Trump administration-brokered deal with Iran that would allow the regime to continue enriching some uranium as part of its nuclear program.

“If media reports are true that there is a consideration of allowing Iran to have very small enrichment of uranium for face-saving purposes: screw that,” Graham wrote on X. “This regime is made up of religious Nazis that are the largest state sponsor of terrorism. The regime has American blood on its hands and they have killed over 30,000 of their citizens simply because they demand the end to their oppression.”

Graham added that he “could care less about efforts to save face for this regime. I would like to see the people of Iran change the regime – it’s long overdue. I hope help is on the way.”

President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that he should be “very worried” ahead of planned nuclear talks, as the president weighs military action amid rising tensions and signs Tehran may be trying to revive its nuclear program.

“I would say he should be very worried, yeah, he should be,” Trump told NBC News when asked whether Khamenei should be concerned. “As you know, they are negotiating with us.”

U.S. and Iranian officials are slated to meet Friday in Oman, which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed Wednesday. Iran pushed for the discussions to be moved from Turkey and has insisted they remain limited to its nuclear program. The United States has sought to broaden the agenda to include Tehran’s ballistic missile capabilities and support for regional proxy groups.

Experts told Jewish Insider that despite upcoming discussions, military intervention remains on the table. On Tuesday a U.S. F-35 fighter jet shot down an Iranian drone near the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea. Later that day, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attempted to stop and board a U.S.-flagged commercial tanker in the Strait of Hormuz before a U.S. destroyer intervened and escorted the vessel to safety.

During an interview on the Megyn Kelly Show, Vice President JD Vance said Wednesday that Trump “will try to achieve what he can through non-military means, but if he feels that the military option is the only option, he is going to choose that option.”

Several Arab and Muslim leaders reportedly lobbied the Trump administration not to walk away from the discussions after Iran demanded to change the venue and format. The administration “told the Arabs we will do the meeting if they insist,” one U.S. official told Axios, but added that they are “very skeptical.”

Satellite images released last week by Planet Labs PBC have also fueled speculation over whether Iran intends to restart its nuclear program after U.S. strikes on several sites in June. Trump confirmed that Iran was “thinking about starting a new site in a different part of the country,” but said the U.S. “found out about it.” 

“I said, ‘You do that, we’re going to do very bad things to you,’” Trump warned, stating that in the event Iran continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions, the U.S. would respond as it did before. “If they do, we’re going to send” B-2 bombers “right back and do the job again.”

Last month the president had cancelled meetings with Iranian officials and vowed on social media that Tehran would “pay a big price” for its violent crackdown on protesters in early January, stating that “help is on its way.” 

When pressed on whether the U.S. continues to back Iranian protesters, Trump said the administration’s position has not changed.

“We’ve had their backs,” said Trump. “If we didn’t take out” Iran’s nuclear sites, “we wouldn’t have peace in the Middle East, because the Arab countries could have never done that.”

There are few things that Ha’aretz and the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 agree on, but with American and Iranian officials set to meet for nuclear talks on Friday, there was near wall-to-wall agreement in Israel that the talks are unlikely to bring positive results.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff during his visit to Israel on Tuesday that “Iran proved time after time that its promises cannot be trusted,” according to a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.

An Israeli military source told Channel 14 that Netanyahu also warned Witkoff that Iran wants to use the negotiations to “kill time … to transfer offensive weapons to hiding places.”

Witkoff, along with Jared Kushner, are set to represent the U.S. in the talks, which were originally set to be held in Turkey but have reportedly been moved to Oman, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is expected to lead his country’s negotiating team. Iran has also demanded that the negotiations be limited to its nuclear program, while the U.S. seeks to curb Tehran’s ballistic missile program and support for regional proxies. 

Hours after Witkoff met with Netanyahu on Tuesday, Iran launched a drone at the USS Abraham Lincoln, which the military shot down, and a U.S. ship escaped an Iranian attempt to stop it at sea. 

Jerusalem eyed the move toward negotiations with Iran with skepticism.

Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, a member of the Security Cabinet, said on Wednesday, “Let’s admit the truth. There is no value to a diplomatic agreement with Iran.”

“Iran has never kept any of its commitments, and even if it agrees to something, it’ll be a hudna [Arabic for a temporary ceasefire] until Trump is out of office,” Cohen told Israel’s 103FM. 

Cohen said that “Trump is a businessman who wants the bottom line, and therefore he is taking his time to bring it. Our message to the U.S. is that negotiations with Iran are a waste of time.” 

Cohen argued that it is in the interest of the region to see the Islamic Republic fall: “Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Azerbaijan told the U.S. ‘don’t attack Iran’ out of fear. It’s clearly lip service.” 

Ehud Ya’ari, the in-house Middle East analyst for Israel’s Channel 12, wrote in an article published Wednesday that the talks will try to reach “an interim arrangement that will relieve the tension without solving the problems.”  

“A move like this is not a good enough solution for Israel,” Ya’ari wrote. “An interim agreement means freezing problems, not solving them.”

At the same time, Ya’ari argued that a broader agreement that will satisfy both Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is impossible, though an interim agreement will also be challenging.

Tamir Hayman, director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University and former IDF intelligence chief, told Ha’aretz‘s Hebrew podcast “The Week” that “anything is better than an agreement with Iran. …Israel does not want an agreement.” 

“Israel does not want any nuclear program at all, zero enrichment,” Hayman said. “We’ll want limits to missile manufacturing and the export of terror to the Middle East export of arms. … My concern in light of past statements by Witkoff is that … he’s only dealing with nuclear and for him, any compromise on enrichment [is acceptable].” 

Hayman argued that “you can’t bring down a regime that you are negotiating with…Any agreement they reach is a lifeline for the regime.”

However, he added, “even without an attack, [the mullahs] will fall in the end,” citing the tens of thousands of protesters killed and Iranian leadership’s inability to save the country’s collapsing economy. 

Hayman said he used to be opposed to “managing the conflict,” but now he believes that the current situation, in which Iran there is a domestic political and economic crisis and no centrifuges are spinning in Iran, “could be good and increase the chances that it will awaken something inside [Iran].”

Meanwhile, Israelis continued to live under the shadow of threats from Iran’s regime, after over a month of concern that Iran may retaliate for an American strike by attacking Israel. The ad for the latest episode of Eretz Nehederet, Israel’s answer to SNL, opened with host Eyal Kitzis looking bored in the studio with ticking clocks behind him and the message: “So, we are still waiting for Iran to attack.” 

ASPEN, Colo. — Speaking on a panel at the Aspen Security Forum, a group of Iran analysts discussed the potential paths forward in nuclear talks with Iran after the American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the possibility that Iran will attempt to reconstitute its nuclear program covertly and the prospect of regime change in Iran.

Former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley laid out three paths forward after the strikes: a continued campaign of Israeli air strikes to “mow the lawn,” while Iran works to try to re-establish its own deterrence; a negotiated agreement with Iran including intrusive inspections that would make it difficult for Iran to construct a covert nuclear program, with provisions addressing Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxies; and the possibility, with an agreement, that Iran decides to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, having spent billions of dollars on the program, alienated the region and still failed to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack.

“There is a question whether the Iranians will decide that the cost of pursuing a nuclear program was just too high,” Hadley said. “It was supposed to safeguard them from getting attacked by the Israelis in the United States, and it resulted in them getting attacked. … That’s a long way down the road. It’s probably a low-likelihood probability, but it would certainly remake the Middle East.”

He presented a potential pathway for Iran, working with Gulf states, to pursue the model that they have laid out, focusing on economic development.

Rachel Bronson, a senior advisor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said that it’s widely believed Iran has seen a nuclear weapon as a guarantor of regime survival, in the model of North Korea. But she said there’s a chance that Iran wants to go down a different path.

“That begs the question whether the Iranians want to live like North Koreans and want to live in a sanctioned regime and in such isolation, which the Iranians demonstrated that they don’t want to live that way,” Bronson said.

David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, argued that, while the Fordow nuclear facility has likely been rendered inoperable due to U.S. strikes, other sites, such as Natanz and Isfahan, can likely be repaired or rebuilt.

“I don’t think anybody can say whether or not this is really gone for good. My guess is you’re going to need a political agreement with getting inspectors back in to make sure that it stays out of circulation,” he said.

Sanger added that it would be a “long time” before Iran is in a position where it will be willing to negotiate. He said he’s concerned about the lack of inspections in the interim, “because I think if we get into another confrontation with them, they will leave the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. And if that happens, I think we could see a second cycle of [military action].”

From the U.S. side, Sanger said that Washington publicly presenting a proposal could build pressure on Iran to strike a deal. Without diplomacy, Sanger continued, future military confrontation is likely. He said there are also major questions around enrichment that Israel and Iran will have to answer.

“The question for the Israelis is, would they give an assurance that says, ‘We won’t strike you if you don’t try to reconstitute your program and don’t have a covert nuclear weapons program?’” Sanger said. ”For the Iranians on the enrichment point, there’s a question of whether, diplomatically, you could finesse it by saying, ‘You of course have the sovereign right to enrich, but you also, in the exercise of that sovereignty, can elect to give it up for other purposes.’”

And he said that Israel should also consider whether it’s willing to allow limited enrichment under comprehensive and intrusive IAEA inspections, arguing that Iran’s pathway to a potential covert weapons program would come via other avenues. 

Bronson highlighted that the U.S.’ European partners, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin, are now in lockstep with the Trump administration in insisting that Iran must give up its enrichment capacity.

She also said it’s likely unrealistic that Iran would be able to restart a covert nuclear program without the world’s knowledge, particularly if it attempts to retrieve its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, activity that would be noticed by various intelligence services.

“The covert is always out there, but it’s a long way to go for them to get back in that game,” she said.

Johns Hopkins University professor Vali Nasr predicted that the Iranian government’s priority would be finding a way to prevent future strikes by the United States and Israel, rebuilding its deterrence and defense.

He also argued that the public, aggressive diplomacy from the Trump administration, including demands on Truth Social for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, make such a deal politically unpalatable for the Iranian regime. He accused the Trump administration of failing to seriously negotiate before its strikes.

“You’re basically asking for surrender. It’s not a compromise anymore,” Nasr said. “So then the question becomes, what is the acceptable cost for surrender? Would the supreme leader think that Iran is back to the wall sufficiently for him to … go and sign a surrender treaty?”

Nasr suggested that the U.S. would have to offer Iran incentives to bring in to the table and that Tehran would make significant demands for such a deal, including a guaranteed end to Israeli strikes on Iran and safeguards against the U.S. pulling out of the deal in the future.

The panel members downplayed the notion that regime change is an imminent prospect in Iran.

Hadley said the most likely source of such a change would be from a faction inside the regime, like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that decides it wants to reduce the role of the mullahs and their revolutionary ideology. 

“If folks come out in the streets it may be because one of those factions has called them to the streets to give them an excuse for making some kind of change with the regime,” Hadley said. “But that’s going to take a long, I think, considerable time, to play out.”

Sanger said that “betting on regime change is a risky business.” He said that the Obama administration had been gambling on the idea that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be dead before the JCPOA sunset.

“It’s pretty clear from talking to the Israelis who were in Washington last week, that is their bet now: They are just pushing for time, and they think a regime change will happen,” Sanger continued. “But I’m not sure where they get that confidence.”

Nasr predicted that there will be no major changes inside Iran as long as Khamenei is still alive. And he argued that the U.S. would need to lay out an attractive alternative and future for Iran in order to motivate a faction like the IRGC to take action.

“How do you force this shift in Iran? How do you cause the debate at the top that people seriously consider that this is a dead end and there’s some other path on the table?” Nasr said. “Iranian leaders, hardline moderates cannot react to what is theoretically possible but is not actually solidly in front of them as an option.”

At the same time, Nasr said that the failure of Iran’s proxy network had been a significant blow to segments of Iran’s government, leaving them in a weakened position in the regime.

The next round of scheduled nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran will not take place on Sunday, Omanian Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi announced on Saturday evening, as Israel and Iran continue to trade strikes.

Albusaidi said that the talks, intended to be the sixth round of negotiations, “will not now take place. But diplomacy and dialogue remain the only pathway to lasting peace.”

A senior U.S. administration official told The New York Times, “While there will be no meeting Sunday, we remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon.” President Donald Trump had exerted additional pressure, writing on Truth Social on Friday that “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire … JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

In a Truth Social post on Saturday afternoon, Trump said that “we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict,” noting that the “U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight” but that if the U.S. was “attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down” on Tehran “at levels never seen before.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkain reportedly said on a call with French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday that Iran will not “accept irrational demands under pressure” or “sit at the negotiating table while the Zionist regime continues its attacks.” 

The talks’ cancellation comes following Israel’s preemptive attack early Friday morning on Iranian nuclear and military targets, and Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel.

The IDF said Saturday night it had completed “an extensive series of strikes” on targets including the Iranian Ministry of Defense and its nuclear research and development headquarters. Iranian state media reported strikes on several oil facilities, including the South Pars field shared between Iran and Qatar, the largest natural gas field in the world. 

Iran fired around 70 ballistic missiles and several drones at Israel on Saturday night and early Sunday morning, sending Israelis across the country into bomb shelters. Direct impacts were reported in the northern Arab city of Tamra — killing four civilians — and the central cities of Bat Yam, where at least six civilians were killed and 200 wounded, and Rehovot, where at least 40 were wounded and laboratories at The Weizmann Institute of Science were reportedly damaged. The Bazan oil refinery in Haifa was also damaged in the attack, though its refining activities continue, its operating company reported on Sunday. 

Saturday night’s strikes bring the death toll in Israel from the Iranian attacks to at least 13 with 380 people injured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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