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.

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

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

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.”

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.”