Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told Jewish Insider on Friday that he’s inclined to view the Trump administration’s strikes last month on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a “success,” if negotiations with Tehran resume and barring substantial future retaliation from Iran.

His comments largely echo sentiments shared earlier in the day by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) at the Aspen Security Forum, suggesting an increasing willingness by moderate, national security-minded Democrats to publicly acknowledge positive outcomes of the strikes, even if they maintain other concerns about the process that produced them.

“I will acknowledge the successfulness of the Israeli attacks and how back-foot the regime was. The fact that they didn’t launch the thousands of missiles,” Warner told JI on the sidelines of the forum. “I was concerned about an attack that didn’t bring Congress along. And I do think there was a huge process foul when the Gang of Eight wasn’t notified and the Republicans [were]. Trump[’s first administration] never did that — but I have never contested the success.”

Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s been pleased that there has not been ongoing asymmetric retaliation against the U.S. by Iran, such as cyber, sleeper cell or Iraqi militia attacks.

“If the current status quo is the same a year from now and it actually leads towards further negotiation — success.”

Warner, Coons and other top Democrats had cautioned the administration against unilateral action against Iran without congressional approval just days before the attack.

“Let’s make no doubt that the Iranian regime [are] bad guys, and that is why I’ve been such a consistent supporter of Israel,” Warner told JI.

“Iran’s, at least so far, been shown to be more of a paper tiger,” Warner said. “If we could just get to the resolution in Gaza, there really could be a fresh start.”

The senator said that his ongoing concern is how President Donald Trump has responded to the attacks, declaring that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely obliterated.

“The president, within two hours of the strike, set an arbitrary, almost impossible standard to meet, in terms of ‘total obliteration,’” Warner said. “To get the enriched uranium you’re going to need troops on the ground. And there are more than three sites — the vast majority [of the activity] was [at] those three, but there was some bad stuff happening elsewhere.”

He said the intelligence community had also been pressured to “contort itself to meet” the assessment Trump put forward.

In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Warner and other Democrats expressed frustration that the Trump administration took days to brief Congress about them. Warner said he’s received “some additional clarity” in the weeks since the strikes about their effects. But he said that without physically sending operatives into the facilities, it’s difficult to know for sure the impacts of the strikes.

“Other nations have made assessments that were more in the multiple months” of delay to Iran’s nuclear program, “but I’m not even sure that’s the right metric,” Warner said. “It was a success. So the question is, what’s next? That, I don’t have visibility on.”

Going forward, Warner emphasized the need for negotiations to bring International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into Iran, adding that he wants to look further into the source of the delays in resuming talks.

Warner said he’s also seeking information on the timeline on which Iran would be able to build a less sophisticated nuclear device that could be delivered in a truck, rather than via a ballistic missile.

Though he noted that U.S. intelligence had not assessed that Iran was actively constructing a nuclear weapon, he said he had heard reports about an Israeli assessment that offered a different view and that he is looking further into it.

Asked about the fluid situation in Syria, in which Israel went, in the span of just a week, from floating normalization with the new Syrian government to bombing key government facilities in response to attacks on the Druze population, Warner indicated he’s still gathering information.

He said that Israel is “appropriately … very protective of its Druze population,” adding that he does not know at this point whether the Syrian government forces attacking the Druze population are doing so at the orders of that government. 

He said he’s hopeful that Israel and other parties involved will not miss an opportunity to find a peaceful resolution that could defuse a major longtime threat to Israel’s north.

Warner said he also wants to see Trump use his “enormous influence in Israel” to “[force] Bibi’s government into a return of the hostages, a ceasefire,” saying that would open up opportunities for transformational change in the region, including Saudi-Israeli normalization.

Warner said that while he’s been critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel and the IDF deserve credit for their surprise accomplishments in taking down Iran’s proxy network and in their strikes against Iran itself.

“The [Jewish community’s] concern is real and understandable,” Warner said. He said that he has been struck by the “level of anger, animosity, vile things said” in anti-Israel protests that have targeted him — “and I’m not Jewish. And I can only imagine.”

“Iran’s, at least so far, been shown to be more of a paper tiger,” Warner said. “If we could just get to the resolution in Gaza, there really could be a fresh start.”

Asked how concerned he is about the possibility of homeland attacks against the Jewish community carried out by or in the name of Iran, Warner said that U.S. intelligence monitors potential threats fairly comprehensively, but indicated that he’s most worried about radicalized lone-wolf attacks, like those in Washington and Boulder, Colo.

“The [Jewish community’s] concern is real and understandable,” Warner said. He said that he has been struck by the “level of anger, animosity, vile things said” in anti-Israel protests that have targeted him — “and I’m not Jewish. And I can only imagine.”

Warner expressed frustration at the way that the Palestinian cause has crowded out other global issues on college campuses. He said that it “would be healthy” if young people “have the chance to get exposed to other things in the world,” offering as examples the conflict in Sudan — which he said has been more deadly than Gaza and Ukraine combined — and the military junta in Myanmar.

On the subject of the Houthis, who have ramped up attacks against commercial shipping and Israel in recent weeks, Warner called the group a “tough nut to crack,” noting that a protracted Saudi and Emirati campaign against the Iran-backed terrorist group in Yemen had failed to put the issue to bed. But he said that the U.S. can’t rule out further military action against the group.

“I hope that those plans would be kept classified and not shared … on a device that’s not secure,” he quipped, referencing the Signalgate scandal, which he said had prompted concern from the Israeli government.

******

Last week’s Aspen summit, which typically prioritizes bipartisan and nonpartisan discussion and solution-making, became particularly politicized after nearly all Trump administration speakers canceled their participation, followed by a handful of foreign and private sector leaders and former government officials disappearing from the week’s agenda.

The issue was a frequent topic of discussion both on the main stage and across the Aspen Meadows campus last week, seen by many as a sign of the ways that intense partisanship has infiltrated U.S. foreign policy, once seen as a less antagonistic space.

Warner’s own panel featured himself and Coons, but not a Republican senator, as has been tradition.

Nevertheless, Warner said that bipartisanship on foreign policy issues still lives in the Senate, noting that the Intelligence Committee had passed an Intelligence Authorization Act recently in a nearly unanimous vote.

Looking ahead, he said the “easiest place to rebuild that consensus is around China,” which he described as an unprecedented competitor. He said there has been a long and difficult journey across multiple administrations to refocus on China, but he said there has been bipartisan success in pushing back against China.

He also argued that the Trump administration’s transactional and short-sighted approach to foreign policy goes against a longtime bipartisan tradition of viewing U.S. international relationships as an effort in “mutual trust-building.”

He said that his Republican colleagues privately disagree with many of Trump’s more outlandish foreign policy efforts — like annexing Canada. “At some point, there’s got to be a break,” he responded, when pressed on the fact that some Republicans defend Trump’s policies publicly despite those private disagreements.

Warner told JI that the bill the Intelligence Committee recently passed would cut the size of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But, despite offering biting criticisms of DNI Tulsi Gabbard, Warner said that the reform efforts are not a reflection of or specifically prompted by concerns about her conduct in the role.

“I’m very comfortable with the idea of bringing the mission closer to what it was originally, but also making sure that people who are at the ODNI get returned to their original home agency and don’t get [fired],” Warner said.

Clarifying comments that he made on the panel about close U.S. intelligence partners in the Five Eyes group curtailing their intelligence sharing with the United States, Warner said he was not aware of specific instances in which that had happened, but said that U.S. partners are concerned about the state of the U.S. intelligence community.

“The challenge about intelligence sharing is [that] this is all based on trust,” Warner said.

In a wide-ranging interview, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer connected Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to the U.S.’ 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, saying that President Donald Trump wouldn’t have pulled out of the deal during his first administration without that precedent.

“I believe that what Iran’s strategy was [before Oct. 7] is to surround Israel with this ring of fire,” including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Syria and Iraq. “And this is another reason why I was so opposed to the nuclear deal that was done in 2015,” Dermer said in the first installment of his interview on Dan Senor’s “Call Me Back” podcast, which dropped on Monday.

“And by the way, the attack [on Iran’s nuclear facilities] that happens now does not happen if Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t show up and confront that deal then. People don’t make the connection. I do, because I’ve lived it every day since then,” Dermer continued. “I don’t see Trump withdrawing if Netanyahu doesn’t take a stand, because no one’s going to be more Catholic than the pope, and no one’s going to be more pro-Israel than the prime minister of Israel.”

Dermer said he and Netanyahu began discussing striking Iran shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks on Israel. “I don’t know if it was Oct. 8, Oct, 9, Oct. 10, but I remember having conversations with [Netanyahu] early that we need to turn the tables on this, but ultimately the address is Iran. If you don’t deal with Iran and you don’t deal with its support for the proxies, then what is the impact you’re going to have if they can just sort of rebuild this stuff over and over and over again?”

“I think we have removed that threat [of the Iranian nuclear program] for the foreseeable future, particularly if we do the things that we need to do now in the aftermath” of the Israeli and U.S. strikes, Dermer continued, without elaborating.

Senor asked Dermer about leaks to the press prior to Israel’s war with Iran that portrayed a strained relationship between Trump and Netanyahu, with the two leaders reportedly at odds over whether to pursue military action or diplomacy with Tehran. “How much of it was orchestrated to throw everyone off, especially the Iranians?” Senor asked.

“I will tell you as somebody who’s been involved at the highest levels of the U.S.-Israel relationship …. [for] around 15 years, you’ve never had a level of coordination and cooperation that you had,” Dermer replied. 

“I don’t know if it was the Monday or Tuesday [before the strikes began], there was a conversation between the prime minister and the president. And 50 years from now, people will say that was one of the best conversations ever between a prime minister and a president,” he continued. After press reports arose saying it was a “really tough call,” Dermer said he asked Netanyahu, “Did we leak that to make it look like it was a terrible call? He’s like, ‘No, no. Somebody else came and just assumed that this was a very, very terrible call’ … But we didn’t say anything at the time, because we thought it would help us, ultimately, with what we were trying to do.”

On the ceasefire negotiations with Hamas, which are ongoing in Doha, Qatar, Demer laid out the Israeli objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza. 

“I think the question is, how do you demilitarize Gaza and end Hamas’ political rule?” Dermer said, noting that  “to kill every single Hamas terrorist in Gaza … would require us to take over everything and to stay there indefinitely. That’s not what the goal is. Hamas exists today in Judea and Samaria, in the West Bank … But they don’t control it.”

“Now, it might be that Hamas is willing to give up de jure control, and they say, ‘Well, somebody else will take out the trash, but we’ll continue to have this militia again.’ That’s something that’s not acceptable,” the minister continued.

In reference to the proposal under consideration — which includes a 60-day temporary ceasefire during which time around half of the remaining hostages would gradually be returned and the parties would begin to negotiate terms for a permanent ceasefire — Dermer said the question remains to be answered: “Can [Israel’s] minimal security requirements, can our minimum hit the maximum that they [Hamas] are capable of living with?” 

“And we’re not going to know that until you have that engagement. And that’s the engagement that you need to have in the 60 days,” he said. “Because is there only one answer for what Gaza can look like the day after? No, I think there are several potential answers of what could happen. I worked on this last year, I mean, very quietly, of a potential plan that could work. And we will continue to work on it now.”

The Pentagon’s chief spokesman said on Wednesday that the U.S. strikes against the Iranian nuclear program had set the program back by two years. His estimate appears to be the most specific information the Trump administration has shared on the extent of the damage caused by the strikes.

U.S. allies “share our sentiments about the degradation of Iran’s nuclear program and the fact we have degraded their program by one or two years … I think we’re thinking closer to two years,” Sean Parnell said at a press conference.

The administration has consistently claimed the strikes completely destroyed the nuclear program. During the briefing, Parnell said that he believed the combination of U.S. and Israeli strikes would be successful in deterring Tehran from continuing its nuclear program in the future. 

“We believe that sending bombers from Missouri, 37 hours on a mission, not a single shot fired on them, took a very strong psychological toll on the Iranian leadership,” Parnell said. “So, when you take the constellation of different things into consideration, we believe Iran’s nuclear capability has been severely degraded, perhaps even their ambition to build a bomb.”

Parnell’s remarks came hours after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told CBS News that the country’s nuclear facilities were “heavily and severely damaged.” Araghchi maintained that Iran’s enrichment equipment and knowledge base were not impacted, despite Israel assassinating several of the country’s senior nuclear scientists. 

Araghchi also said that Iran’s nuclear agency was still conducting damage assessments at the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. This was confirmed by geospatial imagery analysis from the Institute for Science and International Security, which showed crews working to gain access to the underground sections of the facilities.

House lawmakers, like their Senate counterparts, remain divided over the U.S.’ strikes on Iran following a classified briefing Friday morning, with Republicans praising the strikes and most Democrats remaining skeptical.

“This is a historic time that we live in, and this has been an incredible two weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told reporters. “We delivered a major setback [to Iran’s nuclear weapons program[ that resulted in a feeble, face-saving response from Iran and immediately thereafter the ceasefire agreement.”

Johnson said that the U.S. expects that Iran will now join “direct, good-faith negotiations, not through third parties, not through other countries” and agree to a lasting peace deal.

“We’re on the verge of a real peace in the Middle East for the first time in a long time, and that’s because of the decisive leadership in the United States,” the House speaker said.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) suggested that the factors that prompted the strike would likely have spurred past Democratic presidents into action as well. He argued that the exact timeline of how long the strikes had delayed Iran’s nuclear program is not as relevant as whether the strikes, and the threat of further military action, will convince Iran to give up its nuclear program.

“Everyone agrees that it has set them back substantially. It has destroyed vast amounts of very valuable work, above and below ground,” Issa told Jewish Insider. “Now the question is has it done what it was asked to do, which is to give the Iranian leadership a decision to make — one in which they appear to be, and very well might, have abandoned their nuclear ambitions and be willing to come to the table in a different way than they were at the table for the 60 days that President Trump negotiated.”

He added that, given the widespread destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the “above-ground stuff that they did need,” the U.S. and Israel would be able to know if Iran attempted to restart its nuclear program, and could stop them.

“If the Israelis are willing to not let them start building again, or punish them when they do, then, in fact, that’s what the Iranian leadership has,” Issa said. “Let’s just say, hypothetically, they’re pushed back one year. Can they get one year of building without the Israelis pushing it back again? And the answer clearly is no. So that’s their calculation today.”

“The debate is not about how long, anymore,” he continued. “It’s about, really, abandonment, or at least a pause in which they take no action.”

Asked whether the briefing had provided any clarity as to the Iranian leadership’s thinking on that issue, Issa declined to say, explaining that that information would be highly classified, but said he’d met with anti-regime Iranian diaspora activists the night before who believe that the 12-day Israeli bombardment was a “wake-up call” for the Iranian regime which could also embolden the Iranian people.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, told reporters that the U.S. strikes had “destroyed” their targets — one that he emphasized was achieved without the need for a massive U.S. invasion force or a protracted war.

“This was a spectacular success, spectacular under any measure whatsoever, spectacular with no casualties,” Perry told JI.

He said the briefers had shared information about how much Iran’s nuclear program had been delayed, but said he was not able to share it publicly.

House Democrats remained more cautious about the situation.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee who is a lead sponsor of a war powers resolution aiming to block further U.S. military action against Iran without congressional approval, said that it is “pretty clear there was no imminent threat to the United States,” beyond the ongoing Iranian threat to the world.

“I have not  seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,” that would have justified a unilateral strike without the consent of Congress, Himes told JI.

“The objective here has been a little bit of a moving target,” Himes continued. “And I think we actually got a clear statement of objective today, which was, you know, the secretary of state said it. The objective was to set back or destroy Iranian, Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table. He was clear on that point.”

But he said that the briefing did not indicate that any diplomatic “overtures or discussions” are actually currently underway.

Himes said that the administration has been using “a lot of very sloppy adjectives, like ‘obliterated'” to describe the outcome of the strikes, and said it’s “still too early to tell exactly how much” damage the strikes had done.

He said that the briefing affirmed that the U.S.’ goal in the strikes was not to eliminate Iran’s stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, which “must be accounted for at some point.”

Himes has been publicly frustrated about the administration’s failure to notify him and other senior Democrats about the strike beforehand — he told reporters that he learned about it on X while sitting on his couch on Saturday night — but said that the briefing was “a good start.”

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, told JI that “90% of what I heard in there is public,” when asked if anything he learned in the briefing had impacted his views on the necessity or justification for the strike.

Meeks is another lead sponsor of the war powers resolution, with Himes.

Another House Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive briefing, similarly told JI he “didn’t learn anything that was helpful in drawing a judgement,” and that there was “nothing that you walk away thinking, ‘Well, I learned this, and therefore I might consider whether I can draw an independent judgement on whether this was necessary or not.’”

“I got nothing out of it that I didn’t already think I had walking in,” they continued.

The Democrat said that military leaders had “brilliantly” executed the plan they were told to carry out, but there are still questions about the decision-making and judgement of the administration’s civilian leadership.

“One of the problems that you have … is when you pick such highly partisan heads of departments, you don’t know if the person has got sufficient experience to make certain judgements,” the Democrat said.

Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO), who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told JI, “It’s going to take time to get a full assessment and understanding exactly, exactly the extent of any damages and timelines and things of that nature.”

Bell added, “In order to effectively ensure that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, it’s going to have to be a coordinated effort. Obviously, you have to have credible military deterrence, as we’ve seen. Then there also has to be a commitment to the diplomatic side.”

He added that lawmakers agree on a bipartisan basis that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter told a gathering of American Jewish leaders on Wednesday that the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz had “destroyed” the sites.

Leiter also laid out the timeline of U.S. and Israeli coordination on the strikes, which he said stretched back to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in February, though he said it only became clear in the days before Israel began its strikes in Iran that the U.S. was likely to participate. And he argued that any deal with Iran must include, as a precondition, that Iran no longer seek the elimination of the Jewish state.

“There’s this little debate out there, you get into the etymology of the English language,” Leiter quipped, addressing ongoing questions about the extent of the success of U.S. operations and by how long they had delayed Iran’s nuclear program. “What is the difference between ‘elimination’ and ‘obliteration,’ ‘setting them back for years’ [and] ‘destruction.’”

Leiter did not delve into specifics of his assessment or what it was based on.

The comments, at a gathering organized by the Jewish Federations of North America and Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, came after the leak of a preliminary, reportedly low-confidence Defense Intelligence Agency assessment indicating that the strikes had only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a matter of months. Other reports indicated that some of Iran’s nuclear material and centrifuges may have survived the operations.

The Trump administration forcefully denounced the DIA assessment, insisted that the nuclear program has been fully destroyed and published an Israeli assessment indicating that the Iranian program had been set back further.

Leiter addressed the Senate Republican Conference over lunch on Wednesday, and delivered a similar assessment.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told Jewish Insider that Leiter said the attacks had been “very successful.” 

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) told reporters that Leiter said the operations had set Iran’s nuclear program back by “years.”

Leiter also told the audience of Jewish leaders that Netanyahu had presented Israeli plans to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office during his first visit in February. Subsequent reports had indicated that Trump vetoed the plan, at the time.

The Israeli envoy said, “We laid out in front of the administration what the possibilities were. We did not ask for a green light. We made it very clear that this is existential, that this is 1938. The only difference is that in 1938, we were dependent. We were helpless.”

Leiter said Israeli officials had presented Israel’s capabilities and plans, and the potential options for working with the U.S.

“We moved ahead, first with minimal planning together, then with extensive planning together,” Leiter said. “It wasn’t until a few days before we launched Operation Rising Lion that it was clear that the president was moving in the direction of making sure that this strike to eliminate the annihilationist threat to the State of Israel was something the United States would participate in, in full.”

The Israeli ambassador also said that Israel was at the “cusp of the possibility of taking out the Iranian regime” but said, “we’re not in the business of regime change. Regime change has to come bottom-up, not top-down. We can’t force it.”

He said that, if the U.S. and Iran agree to a deal going forward, there should be “an elemental demand that Iran first say it is not going to pursue the annihilation of the State of Israel, the Jewish people.”

Leiter said he would also be meeting on Wednesday with a group of six Democrats who had supported efforts to withhold arms from Israel.

“I tell them, ‘Look, I’ll go into the lion’s den. Just invite me. You want to talk? I’ll talk,’” Leiter explained. “I know that I’m going in front of the firing squad. But that’s my job. I’m going to make the case because I know that our case is the most justified case in the annals of human history.”

Looking at the Middle East broadly, Leiter said Israel has “changed history” after Oct. 7, 2023, having degraded Hamas and Hezbollah and helped to bring about the fall of the Assad regime in Syria.

“We have someone now [in Syria] who’s at least saying the right things, who’s playing the right music,” Leiter said, a notable turn from the Israeli government’s initial skepticism and hostility toward the government led by President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former jihadist. “We don’t know where it’s going to go, we have to be cautious, but it’s moving in the right direction.”

Addressing the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers at the Capital Jewish Museum, Leiter emphasized the intrinsic ties between the Jewish people and Israel, and said, “at the core of this murderous, annihilationist antisemitism is the rejection of the very right of the Jewish people to have a right to sovereignty. You cannot fight antisemitism without fighting anti-Zionism.”

He said that the Jewish community cannot let antisemites — “Candace Owens or somebody from the other side, whatever it is” — dictate to them what Judaism is or “disembowel Judaism from Zionism.” 

“Don’t go down the slippery slope. Don’t go down. We are not an apartheid state. We are not genocidal murderers,” Leiter said. “My son would be alive today if what they’re accusing us of doing, we do. We don’t starve people and we don’t do ethnic cleansing, and we’ve lost countless soldiers because of the approach we take to warfare.”

Leiter’s son died in combat in Gaza.

According to President Donald Trump, Iran’s nuclear program is finito. 

“Obliteration is an accurate term!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday. “Monumental damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran.” He said on Monday that the three sites hit by U.S. strikes on Sunday morning “were totally destroyed, and everyone knows it.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that the U.S. “took out” Iran’s nuclear program over the weekend.

Nuclear experts aren’t as confident. What, exactly, remains of Iran’s nuclear program — which, just weeks ago, Israeli officials said was on the precipice of being able to produce a nuclear weapon — remains an open question. (A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.) 

Experts agree that the combination of Israel’s strikes that began a week and a half ago, aided by the U.S. military’s intervention on Sunday, has done significant damage to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But uncertainty lingers about the status of the enriched uranium that had been housed at Fordow, the major Iranian nuclear facility hidden under a mountain that the U.S. struck with bunker-buster bombs this weekend. 

Reports suggest Tehran may have removed the nuclear materials from Fordow and hidden them elsewhere in Iran. 

“I think that we can assume that damage was done, but it’s going to take a long time, and we may never know entirely the extent of the damage,” said Tressa Guenov, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who dealt with international security affairs at the Pentagon in the Biden administration. Iran’s claim that it moved the uranium “could be real, or it could be a strategy to keep things ambiguous,” she added. 

David Albright, a former United Nations weapons inspector, told The Free Press that “any highly enriched uranium at Fordow was likely gone before the attack.” 

Even with the possibility that the enriched uranium was moved from Fordow, experts agreed that Iran’s nuclear program has been left reeling by the Israeli and American military actions.

“Israelis believe that they dealt together with the U.S. … a really serious blow to the Iranian nuclear program, took it back by, some say, two years,” Michael Herzog, who until January was Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., said on Monday. But, he cautioned, it’s “premature to make that assessment.” Elliott Abrams, a longtime Republican foreign policy advisor who served as Trump’s special representative for Iran in Trump’s first term, said Iran is “now years away” from being able to make a nuclear weapon. 

And the extent of the damage goes beyond just the nuclear program. 

“Iran is losing its nuclear weapons option, and we have applied military force to ensure that,” said Dennis Ross, a former State Department official who worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. “You have a military that has been decapitated. You have a Revolutionary Guard that has been decapitated. You have people in both those leaderships that have been basically together for the last 30 years. They’re not so easy to replace. You have a leadership that doesn’t know who it can trust. You have a leadership that is completely in hiding.” 

Even if Iran’s nuclear weapons program was set back several years, that is not the same thing as obliterating its ability to create a nuclear weapon, as Trump claimed. Vice President JD Vance repeated that statement several times in a Monday night interview on Fox News, where he discussed the newly announced ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran and asserted that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated.” 

But fully dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons program might not even be a realistic goal.

“We know that no military operation on its own will completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program,” Dana Stroul, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who oversaw Middle East policy at the Pentagon in the Biden administration, said earlier Monday.

During the war, Israeli officials hinted that they want to see regime change in Iran. Yet by announcing the ceasefire on Monday night, the Trump administration underscored that the goal of its military operation was to set back Iran’s nuclear program, and not target Iran’s leadership. 

“Absent a revolution in Iran that brings in a friendlier regime, where you could verify the moth-balling of [nuclear] sites and this dismantlement of the program, I don’t think you could ever say for certain that the program is over,” Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Jewish Insider on Monday. 

Trump said in a Truth Social post on Monday evening that, once the fighting ceases, “the War will be considered, ENDED,” and that both sides “will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL.” He did not share whether either side had to abide by any particular demands, or whether the agreement would mark a return to the negotiating table. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) criticized President Donald Trump for carrying out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional authorization, a voice of opposition that was echoed by many leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Jeffries said in a statement less than two hours after Trump announced the strikes that Trump “misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

He said that the Trump administration must explain to the country why it carried out the strikes and brief Congress.

“Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,” Jeffries continued.

Schumer, in a similarly critical statement, said that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy” and said he would be urging all lawmakers to support war powers legislation to block further military action against Iran, and called for an immediate vote.

He said Trump must explain his actions to the American people.

“Confronting Iran’s ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity,” Schumer said. “The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.”

Senior congressional Democrats were largely left out of the loop about the strikes before they occurred, while Republican leaders have said they were briefed.

Administration officials traditionally brief “Gang of Eight” officials — the top Republican and Democrat in each chamber and the chairs and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees — before carrying out major sensitive operations.

Sources familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider that Jeffries received a notification after the operation was likely already underway, but had not been fully briefed, and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was not briefed prior to the strikes.

Sources familiar with the situation told JI that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-AR) were briefed before the strikes.

Johnson pushed back on claims that the administration had illegally sidestepped Congress, saying, “Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.”

“The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight’s necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,” Johnson continued.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) called Jeffries’ statement “an embarrassment,” saying Trump had prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Many Democrats in both chambers have gone further than Jeffries in their responses, explicitly describing the strikes as unconstitutional.

“The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional,” Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), the House minority whip, said. “In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation. The American people, our men and women in uniform, and their families deserve answers.”

Some Democrats have also raised the prospect of impeaching Trump over the action. 

“The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said. “He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.”

Several pro-Israel Democrats, like Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) have fully backed the strike.

“We don’t yet know what this means for the regime’s nuclear work or ambitions, but it absolutely means that the regime has been further weakened — which is good for those who want peace,” Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) said.

“It’s time for the Iranian regime to agree to the removal of all enriched uranium, comprehensive, around-the-clock inspections, and the full dismantling of their terror armies from Hamas to Hezbollah and the Houthis. That will end this conflict, and put the entire region on the path to a real and sustainable peace.”

“Iran is a terrorist nation, and we must do everything we can to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) said. “Debates will now ensue about presidential authority and the President working with Congress. The President should work with Congress, especially those of us who recognize how important it is to finally stop Iran.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) said that Iran should immediately end its nuclear program and stop funding terrorism, but also called for Congress to repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force “so that the American public can get an open & thorough debate on war-making.”

Jewish Insider Congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed to this report

A new bipartisan resolution introduced by Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) and 14 co-sponsors on Tuesday praises Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities and condemns Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks on Israeli civilian targets.

The resolution marks a bipartisan show of support for the Israeli operation even as elements of the far left and far right are warning that the Israeli strikes risk dragging the U.S. into a regional or global war and run counter to American interests.

The resolution states that the House “stands with Israel as it takes targeted military actions to dismantle Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities and defend itself against the existential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran,” “recognizes that Israel’s preemptive and proportional strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites advance the United States’ vital national security interest in a nuclear free Iran” and “reaffirms Israel’s right to self-defense.”

The legislation further states that the House “stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support.”

It asserts that the war came “after exhausting all diplomatic avenues,” and describes the Israeli operation as “intelligence-driven preemptive strikes to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and such capability explicitly designed to achieve the destruction of Israel and the United States,” which, the resolution states, has “achieved national security objectives without risking American lives.”

The resolution also condemns Iran’s “indiscriminate attacks against civilians in Israel” and its repression of its own citizens, and calls on Tehran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons and dismantle its nuclear program and urges other countries to support that goal.

The legislation accuses Iran of having “repeatedly rejected good-faith diplomatic efforts by the United and others to address its nuclear program” and of not negotiating “in good faith.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE), Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Shri Thanedar (D-MI),Roger Aderholt (R-AL), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), Randy Feenstra (R-IA) and Tom Barrett (R-MI), and supported by FDD Action, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and the American Jewish Committee.

The resolution highlights that Iran had been increasing its enrichment activity, stockpiling enough highly enriched uranium for six nuclear weapons and blocking international inspections, among other steps that have brought it closer to a nuclear bomb.

It notes that the International Atomic Energy Agency recently censured Iran for violating its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments, and that Iran responded by further increasing its enrichment activities.

“This bipartisan resolution reaffirms the United States’ unwavering support for Israel’s right to self-defense and for its bold, courageous efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program once and for all,” Tenney said in a statement. “The U.S.-Israel partnership remains unshakable, and this resolution sends a clear and unified message: we will work together to ensure the Iranian regime is never able to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Sherman, in a statement, argued that Iran’s activities had made Israel’s strikes necessary.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has made clear time and time again its intent to ‘annihilate’ Israel and attack the United States and has funded direct military attacks on Israel and the United States for decades It’s regrettable that Iran’s decades of violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which it signed has led us to a point where this is necessary,” Sherman said. “The only thing more dangerous than this war is an Ayatollah with access to nuclear weapons. Israel could not wait until Iran had a stockpile of nuclear weapons ready to be launched.” 

A decision by President Donald Trump whether or not to join Israel’s strikes against Iran could make the difference between the full destruction of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and a more drawn-out war with a less conclusive end, Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher in the Iran and the Shi’ite Axis Program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, told Jewish Insider on Tuesday.

Citrinowicz, the former head of the Iran branch in the Research and Analysis Division (RAD) in Israeli defense intelligence, spoke with JI from Australia, where he is one of more than 100,000 Israelis stranded abroad as the country’s airspace remains closed.

He argued that Israel’s strikes on Iran have gone beyond the war aims authorized by its Security Cabinet — to weaken Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs — and indicate a push toward destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program and forcing regime change. However, he warned, Israel would be unlikely to achieve either without help from the U.S.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Jewish Insider: How would you describe where things stand on Day Five of the war between Israel and Iran?

Danny Citrinowicz: Trump is the variable. He is signaling that the Americans are in one minute, and then the White House says they don’t want to get involved the next. It’s clear that [Israel is] not only aiming at weakening the nuclear and missile programs. I think [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s plans, as he said on Iran International yesterday [that Israel will help “free” Iran], are much wider … There is a genuine attempt by Netanyahu to convince Trump to bring down the regime and change the entire Middle East.

JI: What progress has Israel made toward reaching its stated war aims?

DC: We maximized our achievements when it comes to the nuclear program. We struck the [nuclear] scientists. [The nuclear enrichment site] Natanz is an extraordinary achievement; it collapsed.

We had significant achievements against the missile program. It’s not clear if there have been fewer missile launches [from Iran] because of our strikes or because they are trying to be economical with their missiles. It’s significant that we took out a third of their missile launchers.

The strike on the [Iranian state] TV station is very strange because it is not connected to either war aim. 

My view is that Netanyahu wants to keep going and for there to be a historic event, but he needs the Americans. The Americans are the variable. If they enter, things will be totally different. If not, Israel will continue doing what it has been doing.

JI: How is the Iranian regime responding to the latest developments?

DC: The Iranians have a very difficult dilemma. Decision-making is difficult because they lost so many senior officers. The assassination [of Iran’s Chief of War Gen. Staff Ali Shadmani] last night was very serious for them.

For Iran’s leaders, giving up on the nuclear program is giving up on the revolution. But if they continue fighting, they may also lose the revolution. They have a different view of the situation than we do, which ensures that they will continue fighting for the foreseeable future.

That’s why the important variable is whether Trump will decide to attack [the underground nuclear facility] in Fordow. If he says no, then the war will continue as it has been, with varying momentum as the Iranians try to challenge Israel.

I don’t see this ending soon if the Americans don’t enter [the war]. If they don’t, we will be in this for several weeks, at least…

There is an obstacle for Israel in Fordow [that it does not have the requisite bombs or bomber planes to destroy the facility under a mountain]. We could be planning something, but for now, I’m not optimistic.

JI: If the U.S. does not attack Fordow, what targets remain for Israel to attain its stated war goals?

DC: I don’t think we can achieve more than we already did … We are destroying missiles and launchers. We killed senior officials. There isn’t something left to achieve [in] the war aims that stands out. It’s just deepening the achievement.

My concern is that we’re going beyond that.

JI: Do you mean regime change as well?

DC: I think we’re aiming for it, but Israelis cannot do it alone. With the Americans, maybe. Replacing a regime through military means is hard, and you don’t always end up with something better. There’s a better chance with the Americans. I’ll be very surprised if it happens with Israel alone.

JI: Do you think Israel could send ground troops to demolish Fordow? 

DC: Some have written about it, because they understand that attacking it from the air will be very hard. Either the Americans will help from the air, or something will happen that we don’t know about. 

JI: What if Fordow isn’t destroyed?

DC: If this ends with Fordow intact, it’s a loss, because they can still enrich to 90%. We knew this from the beginning, and it’s still true. Either the Americans help Israel, or we need to pull a rabbit out of our hats.

It’s not clear to me that we went into this campaign with Trump and Netanyahu fooling everyone, or if things are as they appear. If nothing is being hidden, then Israel struck Iran’s nuclear program knowing it cannot destroy it … They took a bet.

This is either part of a grand plan, or it’s an unfolding event.

JI: Are negotiations for Iran to stop uranium enrichment still an option?

DC: The Iranians really want to stop the war with talks, but they will have to give up on a part of the revolution. They will come out very weak … If Iran accepts, it will not be the same Iran. If they don’t, the war will continue.

Still, [U.S. Middle East envoy Steve] Witkoff planned to talk to [Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas] Araghchi, so it’s possible. It depends on Iran. If Iran says “we give up, take Fordow, we no longer intend to develop a nuclear weapon,” Trump can say he’s a peacetime president and “no more bloodshed.” But I don’t see it happening.

JI: If Israel has to continue going at it alone, how long do you think this can continue?

DC: I think it’s a contest of patience between Israel and Iran … I think that we can hold on for a few weeks. Israel’s goal in these weeks is to bring the U.S. into the campaign, and Iran’s goal is for the U.S. not to enter. 

It’s not a simple situation for Israelis, economically, militarily or societally … Israelis are also worn out. It takes hours to fly to Natanz — it’s not like Gaza, it costs a lot of money. The airport is closed. People aren’t going to work. And of course there’s the loss of life.

JI: And how is the Iranian regime faring in the contest of patience?

DC: For them, it depends on one thing. The reach of their military is measured only in their ability to launch missiles at Israel. They have relied on this for their entire existence. That’s the whole story.

There is concern in the regime about pressures from Iranian society, but I don’t see a serious challenge to the regime right now. There have not been any demonstrations. That could change.

JI: How do you view the fact that Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah haven’t joined in the fight and the Houthis haven’t escalated?

DC: One of the reasons that Israel went to war now is because it knew that Hezbollah would not join or its capabilities would be very limited. It was not just because of the nuclear and missile programs. It was the collapse of the axis that created a strategic opportunity Netanyahu didn’t want to give up.

JI: The timing was not, as Trump and Netanyahu have said, because Iran was very close to getting a bomb? Israeli officials have said Iran began the weaponization process.

DC: U.S. intelligence says otherwise. I don’t know why Trump is saying it…

There were significant developments [in the nuclear program], but there was an unprecedented strategic opportunity.

Some Senate Republicans argued Monday that the U.S. should join Israel’s strikes on Iran to help it destroy deeply entrenched nuclear sites such as the Fordow facility, contending that Israel lacks the capacity to do so on its own. Others, though, argued that Israel may have alternative plans to attack Fordow, while still others suggested that the U.S. should hold back and focus on diplomacy unless U.S. personnel are attacked directly.

The comments come amid increasing speculation that the U.S. could become involved in the Israeli campaign, following comments by President Donald Trump on Truth Social that “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” The Israeli government issued evacuation warnings for parts of the city earlier in the day. Trump also announced he would be leaving the G7 Summit in Canada early, though he wrote on Truth Social that the reason he was departing “certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire” between Israel and Iran and is “much bigger than that.”

Assessments have long held that bunker-busting bombs and larger bombers, neither of which Israel has, are needed to eliminate Fordow, though some analysts have speculated in recent days that Israel has been developing alternative strategies to strike that site.

“We have to. I think we have to help. I am going to be encouraging the president [to support Israel] because the greatest tragedy in the world would be if we left the Iranian regime in place with a nuclear easy startup. I’d hate to see Israel spending all those resources of people and dollars on getting the job 90% done,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told Jewish Insider.

“I just think it would be silly to not help. I mean, here we are at this point and then to just [not let Israel finish the job] because they didn’t have the bombs that we have or the airplanes that carry them. That action alone could probably take the regime out. Now, you could try to just force the regime off some other way, but I wouldn’t leave either one of those things, the regime or the nuclear program, undone,” Cramer continued. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told JI that how the U.S. approaches Israel and Iran “is the most important decision the president will make. For the future of the Mideast and the security of Israel and our country, I think we go all in.”

A Senate Republican who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the situation said that Israel is not capable of destroying Fordow and similar facilities without U.S. assistance, and said they and colleagues are working with the administration on ensuring that it is provided.

“Israel can’t finish the job without us, not completely. We’ll give them the bombs but we need to help as well,” one senior Senate Republican told JI of the necessity of U.S. military support for Israel’s operation to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The senator cited the need for bunker-buster bombs to impact facilities that are deep underground. Only the U.S. possesses both the bombs and the planes that are capable of carrying the 30,000-pound explosives. “We’re working on the president,” the senator told JI. 

White House spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer on Monday denied an Israeli report that the U.S. was already conducting strikes inside Iran, saying, “American forces are maintaining their defensive posture, and that has not changed. We will defend American interests.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI he would leave the decision on intervening up to the president, but suggested Israel may have alternative plans to address Iran’s most hardened facilities. 

“We will stand with Israel,” Rounds said. “Israel has done a marvelous job of preplanning their approach. They knew full well that we were not interested in participating or getting involved in this at this stage of the game, so my suspicion is they have their own plans on how to address [Fordow].”

“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, it’s just simply gotten to that point. Israel is taking charge and I suspect they have a plan to finish the job,” he reiterated.

Asked about his takeaways from a Senate Intelligence Committee briefing on the issue earlier in the day, Rounds said it had “reaffirmed that Israel clearly had excellent plans and this is not a happenstance. This is a well-planned-out maneuver that had to be accomplished because, as I think most people realize, Iran was getting closer and closer to having enough equipment, supplies and so forth to actually create, in the very near future, a bomb, if they so desired to.”

“You can only go along with that so long before you realize you’re going to have to act, and this was the opportunity that they had,” Rounds added. 

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) said the U.S. should get involved directly if Iran attacks any U.S. personnel but said the U.S. should otherwise remain focused on pressing Iran back to the negotiating table.

“I applaud the president for trying to get to a negotiated agreement and perhaps Iran will come to the realization that that is their only way out of this, and that’s what we should be pursuing at this point,” Ricketts told JI.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stood strongly behind Israel in his first public comments on its strikes on Iran and its nuclear program on Friday afternoon — a response that was notably more forceful in its support for Israel than those of many prominent members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

“The United States’ commitment to Israel’s security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran’s response,” Schumer said in a statement first shared with Jewish Insider. “The Iranian regime’s stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world. I have long said that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Ensuring they never obtain one must remain a top national security priority.”

Schumer, who has recently been critical of President Donald Trump’s negotiations with Iran, said “the preferred path to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and for supporting security and stability in the region has always been a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage, and every effort must be made to move toward the path of a diplomatic solution.”

Schumer noted that Iran was just censured by the International Atomic Energy Agency “for systematically deceiving the world about its nuclear program,” that it is “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” and it “has sought to expand its influence in the Middle East, exporting terror and violence across the region.”

He said he is “praying for the safety of American citizens and servicemembers in the region and for enduring stability and security in the region.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director for United Against Nuclear Iran, told Jewish Insider on Friday morning that he sees Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets as an effort at coercive diplomacy — in full coordination with the Trump administration — attempting to force Iran into a more restrictive nuclear deal amid its recalcitrance in talks with the U.S.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Jewish Insider: What … are your headlines from the last 12 or so hours?

Jason Brodsky: First is that this is the art of the deal. President [Donald] Trump is building leverage and is trying to sharpen the Iranian regime’s choices, that they [can] have the regime or they can have the nuclear program. They can’t have both, and that is what he’s trying to telegraph to them. He’s also trying to telegraph to them that a deadline means a deadline.

He gave them 60 days to agree to a deal. They didn’t do it, and so now there are consequences for that. That’s the other part.

The third part is what was totally outrageous in how the Iranians miscalculated and overplayed their hand, was that … the U.S. [according to recent media reports] made a compromise offer to Iran’s regime where they would have allowed a limited uranium enrichment for 3% until a regional nuclear consortium could be set up, which would then revert to zero enrichment.

The Iranians rejected that too, after the U.S. demonstrated flexibility and compromise. So the Iranians badly miscalculated, and they misread this president, and they thought that he could be manipulated, but he has proven to the world that you know when he means business.

JI: So you see this as being fully coordinated and fully in line with the U.S.? … The initial [statement] from [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio … [was] much less forceful [in support of Israel’s operation] than some of these more recent [comments] from Trump 12 hours later.

JB: I think you saw some of those initial statements because you had ongoing operations. There were ongoing operations today … With respect to Secretary Rubio, President Trump’s statements are the ones that matter. He’s the decision-maker.

The U.S. is also trying, of course, to protect Americans, and wants to avoid retaliation against Americans, but President Trump is leaning into Israel’s strikes in a way that shows that there was tight coordination here. Israel would have never mounted such a very significant, sophisticated operation and widespread operation without U.S. approval and the green light from the United States.

JI: Looking at what hasn’t happened yet: So far, Israel has not targeted some of these more deeply entrenched nuclear sites. From some things I’ve seen, they’ve not necessarily targeted the actual stockpiles of uranium. They haven’t targeted the supreme leader. Why do you think that is?

JB: I think that that could come later on. This is a multiday operation, and it’s going to depend on the Iranian reaction. There’s a report that the Iranians are withdrawing from the nuclear talks. If that’s true, that is increasing the chances that the U.S. will get directly involved, and if the U.S. gets directly involved, then they’re going to go after [the] Fordow [enrichment site buried deep underground] and the hardened targets as well.

JI: The conventional wisdom has been that Israel cannot strike those on their own. Would that still be your assessment?

To destroy [sites] like Fordow, the U.S. would have to be involved. I think Israel’s showing that it could do a grave amount of damage to the regime on its own. But I think to get to some of those hardened targets, the U.S. is going to have to be involved.

JI: What do you think we’re going to see over the next 24-48 hours?

JB: I think you’re going to see more operations to force the Iranian regime to make a choice, as I said before. That is the game plan. That’s the goal here. It’s to degrade the nuclear and military leadership of the Islamic Republic and military assets of the Islamic Republic, to neutralize their ability to retaliate, that’s key.

Israel is disrupting the command and control of the Iranian military. They are degrading assets and causing confusion and paranoia and disorientation, and that is going to slow down any kind of Iranian response. … I think it’s important for all of your readers to be alert to the risk that Iran will try to supercharge a campaign of terrorism abroad targeting Israeli interests and Jewish community interests as well. And I think the Jewish community around the world needs to be alert to that.

JI: If the goal here is to force Iran into some sort of deal, still, what do you think that that deal would or should look like at this point? To your point, the U.S. had offered concessions [in prior rounds of talks].

JB: The U.S. could potential[ly] get a better deal today than yesterday. I think it should be the total dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program. Total dismantlement. That means zero uranium enrichment, limitations on its ballistic missile program and getting rid of its weaponization program. That’s what should be on the table. And also, the president should be aiming for Iran to cut its support for terror proxies as well. So those are, those are key elements that I think the Trump administration should be pushing for.

Israel’s strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets are prompting fractured responses from Senate Democrats, with a few offering full support for Israel and others forcefully condemning the strikes, while some have sought to carve out a path somewhere in the middle.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the most vocal pro-Israel Democrats in the Senate, offered her first comments on the strike Friday morning, saying that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and is “closer than ever” to developing one, as reflected in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report that Iran had violated its nonproliferation commitments.

“The Iranian regime and its proxies have been very public about their commitment to the destruction of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. We should take them at their word,” Rosen said. “Israel acted in self-defense against an attack from Iran, and the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.”

She also emphasized the need to protect U.S. troops in the region.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), long a proponent of strikes on Iran, was the first Senate Democrat to offer support for the operation.

On the other side of the spectrum, progressives have been loudly denouncing the strikes. 

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the strikes are “an escalation that is deeply concerning and will inevitably invite counterattacks.”

She added that they endanger nuclear talks and U.S. servicemembers.

“I agree with President Trump’s instinct to distance the U.S. from Israel’s actions, but Iran and its proxies are unlikely to differentiate the U.S. from Israel. This is not the time to tie our hands by reducing our diplomatic presence and resourcing as the State Department and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] plan to do,” Shaheen said. “This is a dangerous moment for the region and world. The Trump Administration must quickly move to de-escalate the situation.”

Other progressive Senate Democrats have tried to accuse Israel of undermining President Trump’s wishes, even though Trump himself has publicly expressed support for the attacks in statements and media interviews into Friday morning.

“This strike by Iran is clearly a stick in the eye for the American president because in addition to striking nuclear facilities and at least one of their top research scientists, reportedly Israel also killed the chief negotiator who was negotiating with the United States of America and so it’s pretty transparent that this was an effort to submarine, to undermine our diplomacy,” Sen. Chis Murphy (D-CT) said on Friday morning on “Morning Joe.” “Now, it looks as if diplomacy has no chance.”

A handful of other Democrats have sought some path between those two poles, acknowledging Israel’s right to defend itself while pushing for deescalation and averting a concerted regional war.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, emphasized the need to “avoid steps that will cause further escalation across the region,” while also stating, “Iran has threatened the safety of Israel and the region and Israel has an undeniable right to defend itself and its citizens.”

He said that his “foremost concern” is protecting U.S. personnel in the Middle East.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that the details, justification and consequences of the operation are unknown, while emphasizing that the U.S. had made clear that Israel acted alone and the administration continues to pursue peace.

“I have long believed that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and that Iran and its proxies pose a serious threat to American interests. I am deeply concerned by the IAEA Board of Governors’ determination earlier today that Iran has failed to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran’s defiant subsequent declaration of a new underground enrichment facility,” Coons said. “Even so, tonight’s actions have the potential to lead to dangerous escalation and a full-scale regional war. I am following developments closely tonight and am urging restraint.”

“Everyone’s goal must now be the prevention of a full-blown regional war,” Coons continued. “The Trump administration and our regional partners must work together to reduce the risks of escalation and work towards a path forward that provides safety and stability for the entire region.”

As of Friday morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the top Senate Democrat, was the only one of the top four congressional leaders who had yet to speak out about the attacks.

Schumer attended the Friday morning funeral of former Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) where he delivered a eulogy, and was expected to receive a briefing on the strikes afterward, according to a source familiar with his plans. Schumer was expected to issue a statement after the briefing.

Vice President J.D. Vance expressed deep reservations about the U.S. conducting strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen earlier this month in a private group chat with other senior administration officials, according to a bombshell report by The Atlantic.

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, reported on Monday that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz had inadvertently added him to a group chat on Signal, an encrypted messaging application, with Vance and numerous Cabinet-level officials. Goldberg reported that Vance told the group chat, which debated and detailed the Trump administration’s plans to launch the strikes, that he thought they should hold off on the mission.

“Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake,” Vance reportedly texted the group on the morning of March 14. “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance continued. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed back on Vance’s arguments, explaining why he believed it would be a mistake to wait to conduct the strikes. 

“Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should,” Hegseth wrote to the group. 

“This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC,” Hegseth continued, referring to operational security.

Vance replied directly to Hegseth shortly after, writing: “[I]f you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

The comments underscore that Vance’s views are at odds with the prevailing foreign policy view in the Trump administration, and aligned with an isolationist wing of GOP foreign policy circles that has sought to expand its influence. By suggesting that Europe benefits more than the United States from the U.S. Navy’s protection of the Red Sea shipping lanes, he downplayed the national security threat posed by the Houthis in threatening international waterways.

(After the strikes against the Houthis, the Trump White House issued a statement reiterating the American interest in the region: “No terrorist force will stop American commercial and naval vessels from freely sailing the Waterways of the World.”)

A user with the initials SM — believed to be Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House and a close Trump advisor — replied to these messages by suggesting the U.S. expects some recompense from its allies for carrying out the strikes.

“As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return,” the user wrote. “We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the U.S. successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

A spokesperson for Vance said in a statement to Jewish Insider on Monday, “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations. Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”

The statement did not address whether the vice president did believe or still believes that striking the Houthis serves U.S. national security interests. 

A spokesperson for the National Security Council said in a statement, “At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our servicemembers or our national security.”

The leaked messages also revealed that senior Pentagon advisor Dan Caldwell and Joe Kent, the nominee to be director of the National Counterterrorism Center — subordinate to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — had been named as the lead deputies coordinating the operation for the Defense Department and ODNI.

Caldwell, a Koch network alumnus, took a leading role in the Pentagon transition process, helping to bring on a series of isolationist foreign policy hires into the Pentagon. Caldwell himself faced scrutiny for calls for the U.S. to pull back from the Middle East.

Kent, who is reportedly acting in an advisory role at ODNI before his confirmation, has past ties to white supremacists and neo-Nazis and promoted conspiracy theories.

The revelations have prompted immediate backlash from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

“Classified information should not be transmitted on unsecured channels — and certainly not to those without security clearances, including reporters. Period,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said.  “Safeguards must be put in place to ensure this never happens again.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said that the messages should not have been shared on unclassified systems, adding that U.S. adversaries are likely monitoring Hegseth’s personal phone.

“If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

Leaders of multiple intelligence agencies are set to appear before the Senate and House Intelligence committee on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, where they’re likely to face fierce scrutiny from Democrats over the security breach.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, posted an image mocking Hegseth. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was “horrified” by the reports and that they were illegal and posed “calamitous risks.”