U.S. lawmakers expressed deep skepticism on Tuesday over the international Board of Peace’s newly announced Hamas disarmament framework, pointing to violations already taking place in Gaza and a lack of indications that Hamas is serious about honoring a deal as evidence that the ambitious peace proposal faces near-insurmountable hurdles.

The pushback comes less than a week after President Donald Trump announced that the Board of Peace had brokered an agreement calling for the “complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups” in the enclave, at which point the IDF is expected to completely withdraw. 

However, the agreement hit immediate turbulence over the weekend. Despite the plan calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities, the Israel Defense Forces carried out multiple strikes across Gaza. On Monday, Board of Peace High Representative Nickolay Mladenov held a “constructive and detailed” meeting in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, requesting a full pause in military operations to allow disarmament efforts to begin. 

Netanyahu said in a video statement on Tuesday that the U.S. “sent us a draft” of the agreement, but “we didn’t agree. It wasn’t our draft. We sent our responses.” He vowed that Israeli troops would not pull back from their current lines in Gaza until disarmament was complete.

Against the backdrop of  hostilities and diplomatic friction, members of Congress across the aisle voiced serious doubts on Tuesday about the viability of the deal.

“There will be no real peace for Gaza or Israel as long as Hamas has weapons and is allowed to ruthlessly rule over innocent Palestinians,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) told Jewish Insider. “I’m cautiously encouraged by this plan, but let’s not kid ourselves — Hamas has a long record of lying, and they’ve broken their word before, over and over. I’ll be watching every step of this until Hamas is fully disarmed.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) was succinct in his assessment, noting that “it’s not really yet what I would call a deal,” given the resistance it has already faced.

Republicans also expressed skepticism that Hamas would live up to its end of the agreement. 

“I suspect that while this may have good intentions to it, I’ll believe it when I actually see it happening,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI. 

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), meanwhile, pointed the finger at international bodies and critics of Israel, arguing that enforcing Hamas’ disarmament will require real forces on the ground rather than unhelpful rhetoric from foreign observers.

“This plan will work, but first you’ve got to take their weapons, and they’re not going to just give up their weapons,” Kennedy said. “They’re going to say ‘Israel has to withdraw first, and then we’ll give up our weapons,’ and they won’t give up their weapons … My question is, where are all these other backseat drivers that have been criticizing Israel? Where are they? This is their chance for peace.”

“Other people in the world, including but not limited to the United Nations, who are preaching in Israel and in America about how we screwed up Gaza, they need to get off their ice-cold lazy butts and send some of their troops, along with Israeli troops, to disarm Hamas,” Kennedy added. “And they won’t do it. They just want to sit there and criticize us and the president.”

In a change of tone, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Wednesday that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa deserves a chance to rebuild the war-torn country, arguing that his efforts to curb Iran’s influence in Syria should prompt Israel to reassess its approach to the new government. 

Graham, who has long been skeptical of Syria’s new government, released a statement at the conclusion of his visit to Ankara, Turkey, this week for the NATO summit, where he took part in several bipartisan meetings between U.S. lawmakers and world leaders including al-Sharaa. 

The South Carolina senator said he left his meeting with the Syrian president feeling encouraged, saying the Syrian leader has earned U.S. backing as he seeks to rebuild the war ravaged country.

Graham’s latest statement came hours after President Donald Trump notified Congress that he’s moving to remove Syria from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list, which the president had been publicly considering. 

“I believe it is in America’s national security interest to work with him and give him a chance to see if he can put together a lasting, functioning government in Syria,” Graham said of al-Sharaa. “A fractured Syria, on the other hand, plays into the hands of our enemies. I think President al-Sharaa presents the best chance for a functioning, united Syria over time.”

“I very much understand Israel’s concerns, but President al-Sharaa has been a true thorn in the side of Iran. He has dramatically reduced Iran’s influence in Syria, which is a giant step forward for the Syrian people and a blow to Iran,” he continued. “It is time to recognize what he’s done regarding Iran and give him the capability to improve the lives of the Syrian people, realizing that the status quo is unacceptable for all.”

The comments mark a notable shift for the South Carolina senator, who has been among the most vocal skeptics of the new Syrian government since it took power in March 2025. Graham had tried to convince the Trump administration to place binding conditions on the repeal of Caesar Act sanctions on Syria last year, which the White House and Syrian diaspora groups successfully pushed congressional Republicans to lift unconditionally. 

Graham vowed to “do everything in my power to revive the Caesar Act sanctions, making them even more bone crushing” in response to the Syrian government’s military offensive in January against territory held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. He introduced legislation that month imposing sanctions on any government or group involved in targeting Kurdish forces in Syria.

U.S. lawmakers across the political spectrum are sounding the alarm over the Trump administration’s plans to review whether it can sell F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, arguing that the move would raise national security concerns and that Ankara has not yet fulfilled its obligation to dump its Russian S-400s. 

In the Oval Office on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said he was considering selling the advanced jet engines to Turkey, stating that he would “do something that’s going to make him [Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] very happy.” Vice President JD Vance said the administration is “confirming” that Turkey has fulfilled its obligations under U.S. law in order to receive advanced F-35 fighter jets. 

Ankara has long sought the advanced systems but has been barred from purchasing it since 2020, after it acquired the S-400 air-defense system from Russia. A report published last week by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America suggested that the S-400 system is inactive but still intact in Turkey. 

The proposed deal has drawn fierce bipartisan pushback and notable criticism from within Trump’s own ranks. 

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) told Jewish Insider that he is “very concerned” about the prospect of Turkey acquiring the F-35s, arguing that such a move would raise significant national security concerns due to Ankara’s close security ties with Russia.

“Turkey has integrated its defenses with the Russian missiles. The F-35 is a technology platform that Russia would love to get information on and we can’t allow that to happen,” Schneider said. “Turkey has not been the best NATO ally. Its actions in the Eastern Mediterranean have been contrary to U.S. interests and regional interests, so I have real concerns.”

Schneider also noted that he does not believe Turkey has given up possession of the Russian S-400s, suggesting that Ankara has yet to fulfill the critical obligation that must be certified, in writing, to Congress.

“I have not seen that,” Schneider said. “I’d want to see that in concrete evidence from this administration.” 

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) said on social media that there is “bipartisan opposition” to the move and posted a photo of Erdoğan hand-in-hand with Russian President Vladimir Putin and former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. 

“As long as Turkey is under the leadership of Erdogan who aligns himself with Iran and Russia, harbors Hamas & remains the only NATO member to not sanction Russia, Turkey should NOT receive our best jets and military equipment,” Malliotakis wrote. 

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) also criticized the move, saying in a post on X that “Erdogan cannot be trusted” and that the “decision must be reversed.” 

“Turkish President Erdogan has cozied up to Hamas and Putin while threatening our allies in Israel, Greece and Cyprus,” Gottheimer wrote. “Yet, the Trump administration is happy to sell them advanced engines to power fighter jets.” 

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) said that if Trump continued with the move she would “introduce a joint resolution of disapproval. 

Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) also expressed sharp disapproval, saying, “Absolutely no F-35s to Turkey” in a post on social media. 

“Turkey was kicked out of the F-35 program during the first Trump administration for purchasing Russian S-400 missiles, which it still possesses today,” Pappas wrote. “Since then Turkey has only grown more aggressive against critical American allies such as Greece and Cyprus, increased oppression of its people, and made the region even more unstable.”

“The law is clear: the Trump administration is required to certify to Congress that Turkey is in compliance with our laws before any sale can even be considered. We cannot reward Erdogan’s government while it continues to violate U.S. law and threaten our reliable, democratic allies,” he added. 

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he expects to receive a classified briefing on the F-35 sale and the status of the S-400 next week.

Asked about the administration’s praise of Erdoğan, Mast said that “Turkey as a whole is a large and important NATO ally.” On Wednesday, the president called the Turkish leader a “very good person,” despite also saying that he would fight “on the Iran side” of the war. 

“I’m not going to go out there and defend Erdoğan in any way, shape or form,” Mast said. “Erdoğan and I don’t have a personal relationship. I think a number of activities by Turkey have been problematic and I have nothing that would make me go out there and personally defend Erdoğan. I have many relationships — that’s not one of them.”

Meanwhile, Schneider expressed concern over Trump’s praise of Erdoğan. 

“I’m worried he [Trump] seems to get close to a lot of leaders who have totalitarian instincts,” Schneider said. “It’s a pattern.” 

Mast’s Democratic counterpart, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), said he opposed the sale of F-35s to Turkey, warning of its impact on other U.S. allies in the region such as Greece and Cyprus, and also expressed criticism of Erdoğan personally while calling Turkey an important ally with which to maintain conversations.

But Meeks said he’s open to the sale of advanced jet engines to Turkey “if I get my questions answered by the administration,” and expressed frustration that Trump is speaking publicly about the sale without communicating with him as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a break with precedent.

Sinan Ciddi, director of the Turkey program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that while Trump appears intent on making the sale, it is likely to meet significant hurdles. For instance, Ciddi confirmed that Turkey still possesses the S-400 defense system, which would not fulfill the obligations required under law to lift the sanctions. 

“Turkey does still maintain the S-400 defense system,” Ciddi said. “We’re not talking about one or two missiles. I believe in total Turkey holds up to 200 air defense missiles that were sold to them by the Russians back in 2019. They are presently sitting under lock and key in Turkish warehouses.” 

Ciddi noted that Turkey has not deployed the S-400s it currently holds as a precautionary measure because it would have “resulted in additional U.S. sanctions against Turkey.” 

He said a major area of concern of selling Turkey F-35s while it still maintains the S-400s is the ability for sensitive information to be shared with U.S. adversaries. 

“The concern is if they don’t get rid of those and the F-35 was delivered to Turkey, or became operational in Turkey, those S-400 systems could collect sensitive information about their stealth capabilities and share them with adversarial powers, such as the Chinese, the Russians, as well as the Iranians.” 

“There’s been a relative consensus in opinion in congress, as well as political administrations, that you want to keep Turkey out of the F-35 program,” he added. 

Ciddi also discussed Trump’s closeness to Erdoğan, arguing that the U.S. has not held Turkey accountable on key issues such as support for terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood, due to Ankara’s role in helping mediate talks between Israel, Iran and the U.S. as well as in the Russia-Ukraine war. 

“In Trump’s own words, he seems to admire and essentially have a strong affinity for Erdoğan,” Ciddi said, noting that another explanation is that Trump is listening closely to U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack on Turkish issues rather than “what he needs to hear from a variety of voices within his administration.” 

Elliott Abrams, a former Iran envoy during the first Trump administration, also cautioned against the move and Trump’s “soft spot” for Erdogan.

“President Trump has a soft spot for Erdoğan for reasons that no one can understand, but that is no reason to risk American military secrets,” Abrams said. “Turkey has not abandoned the S-400 and therefore should be excluded from the F-35 program. This ought to be simple, because U.S. law is clear.” 

Ciddi also expressed concern on what the potential move might mean for Israel and suggested that Turkey holds considerable military prowess even without the F-35s, although he noted that Israel holds an advantage having operated the F-35s for a longer period of time and also maintaining more sophisticated models. 

“The Israelis are really concerned,” Ciddi said. “The acquisition of an F-35 would be a game changer, but there are significant hurdles ahead of that. Israel already has F-35s and operates them, and the Israeli variant of the F-35 is one of the most advanced and unique versions of the F-35 that is operated, and it’s unique to Israel – no other country possesses and operates the F-35 that has the boutique suite of operating capabilities that the Israelis have, so Israel does maintain a significant qualitative military edge.”

He said that even if the Trump administration authorized the sale, it would likely take years to come together and “would not be an immediate delivery of F-35 units beyond the six that Turkey already purchased back in 2019, which are essentially sitting in U.S. warehouses here and collecting dust.” 

As the Trump administration prepares to submit a proposed civil nuclear pact with Saudi Arabia to Congress, U.S. lawmakers are raising concerns about the potential agreement while nonproliferation experts and former Trump administration officials are sounding the alarm, warning that the pact abandons traditional safeguards and could ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Last month, the Trump administration proposed the pact to assist Saudi Arabia with its development of civilian nuclear power, following indications last year that it would pursue such an agreement to strengthen bilateral diplomatic ties. Experts say the White House is looking to construct and operate a uranium enrichment plant within Saudi Arabia, safeguarding the facility through a bilateral framework.

The pact is currently undergoing final review before President Donald Trump can formally submit it to Congress. Once the president signs the agreement and transmits it to Capitol Hill, both chambers will have 90 days to pass resolutions of disapproval to block the deal. Otherwise, the pact will automatically go into effect, permitting the U.S. to share civilian nuclear power technology with the kingdom.

Experts told Jewish Insider that the agreement in its current form would not require Riyadh to adhere to the nonproliferation “gold standard” – a commitment to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing. Other regional partners, such as the United Arab Emirates, accepted this stringent safeguard in past U.S. deals specifically to prevent military or illicit nuclear activity. 

The proposed pact would also exempt Riyadh from accepting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) “additional protocol.” This accord helps rule out clandestine military activities by granting international inspectors the authority to conduct sudden, unannounced visits to nuclear facilities. While the U.S. maintains numerous nuclear cooperation agreements globally, it rarely establishes them with nations that reject these baseline oversight protocols.

Democrats across the ideological spectrum have previously indicated concern over the potential civil nuclear pact, reflecting a historical trend in which Congress has typically supported a stringent nonproliferation policy toward Saudi Arabia that includes robust safeguards.

In May, a dozen Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio asking that the administration follow strict U.N.-backed protocol, including IAEA inspection. However, in a letter from the State Department to Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), the administration only indicated that the agreement would require the two sides to commit to a “bilateral safeguards agreement,” and did not make a mention of the “gold standard,” according to Reuters. 

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) told JI he was concerned about the administration pushing forward the agreement without safeguards, saying that “there’s only one reason not to have non-militarization safeguards and that’s militarization.”

“The idea that allowing Saudi Arabia to move toward a nuclear weapon defies history,” Sherman said. “A Saudi nuclear weapon leads to worldwide proliferation. Egypt and Turkey would feel that they need to match that, and then where’s Argentina and Brazil going to be?”

Sherman emphasized that Saudi Arabia should follow an agreement that mimics a 2009 nuclear agreement between the U.S. and UAE, in which the vital safeguard standard was followed.

“The UAE signed the good agreement. Why the hell can’t the Saudis sign the same agreement?” he said, noting that UAE would likely follow and “get out of the gold standard too,” in the event the pact goes through. 

In February, Sherman, a longtime opponent of nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Riyadh, announced that he would be introducing legislation to require an affirmative congressional vote prior to the administration finalizing any nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. 

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) said he had heard about the discussions, but declined to comment on whether he would support the agreement in its current format. The Florida lawmaker, however, expressed little concern over the U.S. sharing civilian nuclear power with Riyadh or other regional players, calling the subject “fair to discuss.” Though he noted that such a deal should ultimately be tied to the “Abraham Accords framework.”

“I think it’s something that is fair to discuss, but also that’s why Iran not getting a nuclear weapon is such a big deal, because that will start a nuclear arms race,” Moskowitz said.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) declined to comment on whether he had reviewed or would support the potential pact, but expressed a firm desire to limit the expansion of nuclear weapons in the region.

“We can’t have anybody else over there [in the Middle East] with nuclear weapons,” Burchett said.

When asked about the potential deal by JI, several Senate Republicans indicated they were unfamiliar with the plan. Other lawmakers, including Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), also noted they had not yet heard much regarding the potential agreement, stating they would need to look into the matter further.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), however, said he was not concerned about the agreement breaking the “gold standard.”

“I don’t necessarily assume that would break the gold standard on it,” Lankford said. “The biggest issue is where is the uranium coming from and who’s actually producing it, and where are they stored?”

While it was previously thought that a civil nuclear agreement would be linked to Saudi normalization with Israel, the Trump administration has notably uncoupled the two initiatives. In May 2025, a group of nine Jewish House Democrats wrote to Trump to voice their displeasure over the separation of the two objectives.

Meanwhile, analysts continue to express deep concern over the arrangement in its current format, citing that the lack of safeguards could create severe risks to national security and set a poor precedent for current and future U.S. nuclear cooperation frameworks. 

“The U.S. should be helping other countries with nuclear power but should strongly avoid helping them learn the fuel cycle and move closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon,” Elliott Abrams, an Iran envoy under the first Trump administration, said. “The gold standard remains our agreement with the UAE, where they agree not to enrich uranium. There is no reason the Saudis have to enrich uranium and the U.S. should not agree to it.”

Abrams called it “ironic” that the U.S. would remain locked in a confrontation with Iran over the threat of its nuclear weapons program while simultaneously considering “helping one of its neighbors enrich uranium.” He noted that the fallout from such a deal would inevitably compromise existing agreements and future negotiations with other Arab partners.

Experts also worry the concessions could undermine Washington’s strategic partnership with Abu Dhabi and incentivize other nations to pursue similar proliferation pathways.

“If we agree to this in the Saudi case, we will be abandoning a longstanding position and every deal we do after that will have to allow enrichment,” Abrams said. “In fact, we will have to renegotiate the UAE agreement as well.”

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), similarly expressed that the format of the deal could “undermine cooperation” with the UAE even as the Gulf state emerges as “America’s most valuable partner in the Gulf.”

He also cautioned that the pact could “threaten the global nonproliferation regime and raise the risks of a regional proliferation cascade.” Other experts joined in warning that bending established rules for Saudi Arabia could shift the calculus of neighboring states, prompting a rush to acquire enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.

“The fear is that other countries – Egypt, Turkey and the UAE – would use enrichment technology to develop the potential to make a nuclear weapon,” Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said. Additionally, while the UAE has already agreed to the “gold standard,” Henderson said that commitment could “change if other regional countries obtain the technology.”

Critics have also argued that Saudi Arabia could eventually seek to manufacture a nuclear weapon of its own. While Riyadh is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) — which legally obligates the kingdom not to manufacture or acquire nuclear arms — several Saudi officials have explicitly stated in recent years that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the kingdom would follow suit.

Andrea Stricker, director of the nonproliferation program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), said that the current U.S. approach “undermines decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy” and could allow Saudi Arabia with “the option to make fuel for nuclear weapons.”

“If the Saudis have access to the technology, and combined with weak IAEA inspections, they could build parallel covert capabilities. There is also little to stop Riyadh from ejecting U.S. officials from a plant and taking over,” Stricker said. “President Trump should stop this historic mistake before it is finalized, and if not, Congress should block the agreement.”

Ruhe shared similar concerns about Saudi Arabia’s potential long-term intentions. 

“Such a deal raises real concerns that the kingdom would one day decide to slip free of the U.S. deal and enrich uranium on its own, either openly or secretly,” Ruhe said. “Given its past ties, this could include covert cooperation with Pakistan or China.”

Saudi Arabia has previously entered into several bilateral civil nuclear arrangements with foreign nations, including Argentina, France, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and South Korea. Of greater concern to Washington, however, are Riyadh’s active agreements with Russia and China. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has steadily expanded its nuclear cooperation with Beijing. The two U.S. adversaries are capable of providing similar nuclear products to Riyadh without the same strict demands and nonproliferation commitments.

“Washington appears to want to sell civil nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia rather than allow a country like Russia or China to do so,” Henderson said. “The fear is that Saudi Arabia already has enrichment technology obtained from Pakistan and doesn’t want to give it up. Since Iran already has enrichment technology, Saudi Arabia thinks it deserves the same.”

U.S.–Saudi nuclear cooperation has historically remained limited. The two nations entered into a memorandum of understanding in 2008 that provided for low-level nuclear energy cooperation and later signed a nuclear safety cooperation memorandum of understanding in 2022. 

“With Iran’s enrichment program degraded due to U.S. and Israeli strikes, it would be far sounder policy to continue rolling back Tehran’s efforts and insist the Saudis rule out enrichment and reprocessing and maintain control of the spread of this sensitive technology in a proliferation-sensitive region,” Stricker said. “The United States should also remind the Saudis of extensive economic, military, and defensive support that Washington provides, assistance which should not be available if Riyadh tilts toward China.”

Lawmakers are expressing skepticism over Pakistan’s expanding role in the Middle East, cautiously welcoming its involvement in U.S.-Iran negotiations while questioning its defense aspirations in the region and whether it can truly serve as an impartial intermediary — even as the Trump administration increasingly engages with the country.

Pakistan has taken on a more prominent role in Middle East geopolitics in recent months, deepening defense ties with Gulf states — including signing a mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia in September 2025 and nearing a potential security pact with Qatar — while also positioning itself as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran.

Islamabad’s involvement in the negotiations has helped facilitate a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran, even as Pakistan has taken steps to support Iran’s economy, including opening transit routes that allow it to import goods amid the conflict.

President Donald Trump has spokenly highly of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and maintains close ties with army chief Asim Munir, who nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May 2025. Munir has since been invited to a private White House lunch and later to the Oval Office alongside Sharif — part of a longstanding pattern of close ties between U.S. presidents and Pakistani military leadership.

However, Islamabad’s posture toward Israel has not been as warm: Israel and Pakistan do not share diplomatic relations and Pakistan continues to strongly back the Palestinian cause. Islamabad has also refused to recognize or allow its citizens to travel to Israel. In a since-deleted tweet earlier this month, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif called Israel “a curse for humanity” and a “cancerous state.” 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that despite Pakistan’s complicated track record, the U.S. should “welcome” any “constructive role” it is willing to play — while remaining vigilant.

“I think the approach has to be: don’t trust, but verify,” Blumenthal told Jewish Insider. “[Pakistan] has certainly been a somewhat ambiguous force in many ways. They’ve been disruptive to some relationships. They’re a nuclear-armed power, but they are definitely a force, and if they can play a constructive role here we should welcome it. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept their word on everything they do or say.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) struck a similarly cautious tone, questioning whether any actor in the region can be considered a truly neutral mediator.

“I’m not sure if anybody over there is an honest broker, to tell you the truth,” Burchett said. “They’ll all side with the winner, and that’ll be us when it’s all over, because they need those American dollars.”

Burchett warned that Pakistan’s growing engagement with Washington “could” strain U.S. ties with India. 

“India has been a strong ally of ours, so I think we need to be very careful about that,” he said. “But I think Trump understands that, and he’s going to keep that in mind. Him and [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi are fairly close.” 

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) was more critical, arguing that Pakistan’s role stems from its close ties to Iran — a dynamic he said raises concerns.

“[Pakistan has] good relations with Iran, which doesn’t speak well of them,” Sherman said. “I mean, I don’t have any friends of mine who engage in terrorism. So, you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends, so certainly we would like to have more support from Pakistan than we have.”

Sherman also warned that deepening U.S.-Pakistan ties could have consequences for Washington’s relationship with New Delhi.

“If we grow our ties with Pakistan to the point that we’re not calling upon them to clamp down on [hostility toward Israel] and other terrorist groups, then it would [hurt the U.S.-India relationship],” he said. “If it goes to the point that we [the U.S.] forget that there are terrorist groups that are finding haven in Pakistan and that Pakistan should be doing more to clamp down on them, then I will be upset and Modi will be upset.” 

He further expressed concern over Pakistan’s expanding defense relationships in the region, cautioning that “you certainly don’t want Pakistan sharing nuclear weapons technology with Saudi Arabia or anyone else.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), meanwhile, suggested the U.S. may not have a choice as it faces limited options in choosing a mediator. “I don’t think we have a lot of alternatives,” he said. “I don’t think we’re in a position to be too picky in terms of interlocutors. I hope it works.”

Foreign policy experts have also expressed caution over Pakistan’s expanded role and the Trump administration’s apparent friendliness with Islamabad. 

“The Trump administration’s Pakistan policy suffers from deep historical amnesia,” said Sadanand Dhume, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. “It appears as though the U.S. has decided to completely ignore decades of painfully learned lessons about Pakistan’s propensity to host anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorists. The Trump administration also risks upturning a robust U.S.-India relationship built over decades by Republican and Democrat administrations alike.”

“Pakistan is one of the world’s most strident critics of Israel,” Dhume added. “Pakistan’s obsessive hatred of the Jewish state masks the Islamic nation’s profound failures, including an inability, so far, to allow democracy to take root and a moribund economy that makes Pakistan one of the poorest countries in south Asia.”

He added that Islamabad’s broadening defense ties are in part due to a growing “insecurity following Israeli strikes on Qatar, and a widespread perception that the Pakistani Air Force performed credibly in a four-day-conflict with India in May 2025.”

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former British diplomat and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that Pakistan’s emerging defense alignment in the region is based on its “historically close relationship with all the Arabian Peninsula countries because of geographical proximity, religious compatibility and the complementarity of small, wealthy countries with labor shortages and a populous poorer country that exports labor.”

Fitton-Brown said that “Qatar is especially attractive to religiously conservative Pakistani expats.” He added that the current conflict between the U.S. and Iran has “driven [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries closer to each other” and that Qatar has sought to bring “Saudi Arabia into a Sunni Islamist axis with Turkey and Pakistan.”

Blaise Misztal, vice president of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said that the Iran war has underscored certain Gulf states’ vulnerability to conflict despite U.S. security guarantees, presenting a need to seek multiple defense agreements. 

He noted that prior to the Iran war, “reports suggested an even bigger agreement lashing Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all together into a defense pact.” 

“The fact that the idea appears to have been revived should be a warning to Washington that all the gains that it had made in demonstrating American strength and resolve and convincing Gulf countries that only the United States can provide for their security are already beginning to evaporate as the region contends with the possibility of Trump cutting a deal that leaves the Iranian regime in place and in control of the Strait of Hormuz,” Misztal said.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, multiple Jewish lawmakers emphasized that the Sunday terror attack in which 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney, Australia, came after warnings from the Australian Jewish community, and Jewish communities around the world, about the rising violent threats they face —  warnings that have often gone ignored, the lawmakers said.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said that Australian Jews and others around the world have been warning “for far too long” about the “alarming, explosive rise in violent antisemitism.”

“That threat, those warnings, have fallen on deaf ears, and we are living with those consequences now,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I hope that this tragedy is the wake-up call that world leaders need to truly stand up and protect their Jewish communities from antisemitism, whether that manifests online or in person.”

She said that leaders around the world “must do better.”

“Lives are at stake. This is not pretend. These enemies of the Jewish people are not playing games. They mean to end our existence as a people,” she continued. “We will not allow that. Our allies and friends must help us make sure that never happens.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, emphasized that the attack was “not predicted” but “it was predictable.”

“For too long, the Jewish community in Australia was saying to the authorities, saying to the government, ‘Antisemitism is a cancer eating away at the soul of the nation, and it’s going to result in the death of Jews in the land,’ and that’s what we saw on Sunday,” Schneider continued.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) emphasized that Australia’s special envoy for antisemitism had in July offered a plan to combat antisemitism, but the plan had not been fully implemented by the Australian government.

The briefing was hosted by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) and the American Jewish Committee.

Gottheimer said that the public outcry he had seen since the Sydney massacre “is a sign to me that there is a recognition that we can do something if we stand together.”

“We should all be going after the root of the rising scourge of antisemitic hate around the world,” he added. “We must stand up to our foreign adversaries like the government of Iran, and the terrorist organizations that they support, for driving this hatred and violence for the Jewish people.”

Lawler said that the lawmakers had gathered “united in a bipartisan way to say that we will not tolerate this. We will not accept this as the norm that our Jewish brothers and sisters have to live in fear of being murdered while practicing their faith.”

AJC CEO Ted Deutch, who previously represented a South Florida House district, urged lawmakers to act promptly to confirm Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun as the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism and to provide adequate funding for the office, to strongly condemn the attack, to publicly stand with the Jewish community and to investigate foreign-backed antisemitism and influence operations targeting Jews globally.

“In the U.S. and with our allies, we’ve got to take concrete steps to strengthen our intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation, protect our communities, to preserve democratic stability and to prevent massacres like the one that happened on Bondi Beach,” Deutch continued.

William Daroff, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said, “If there was ever any doubt that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are one and the same, the attacks since Oct. 7 erase it. Jews are being targeted not for policy, but for presence. Not for politics, but for being Jewish, visible and alive.”

Marina Rosenberg, the Anti-Defamation League’s vice president of international affairs, said that she and a global coalition of Jewish leaders had visited Australia just days before the massacre to “sound the alarm on the dangers of surging antisemitism, calling on officials to act before it was too late. Tragically, for our brothers and sisters in Australia, it is too late.”

Rosenberg also emphasized that the attack is part of a “global pattern targeting Jewish communities,” not an isolated incident. She said that Congress must boost security funding for religious institutions and confirm Kaploun.

Other lawmakers who attended the briefing included Reps. Tim Burchett (R-TN), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nick LaLota (R-NY), Jonathan Jackson (D-OH), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Grace Meng (D-NY), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Wesley Bell (D-MO), Joe Wilson (R-SC) and George Latimer (D-NY).