US Pro-Israel Hawks Criticize Iran Deal But Avoid Confronting Trump

Washington, DC – Just months ago, it was hard to imagine a mainstream US politician, let alone a Republican senator, acknowledging Iran’s right to self-defense. But on Wednesday, Senator Roger Marshall did just that: “I think they have to be able to defend themselves,” he told CNN.

Analysts say such statements signal a shifting attitude in the United States. This week, after President Donald Trump agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran, several Republican lawmakers appeared to tone down their hawkish rhetoric.

However, many pro-Israel groups and politicians are beginning to lobby against the deal, raising the potential for confrontation with the White House and those who want a swift end to the US-Israel war with Iran.

An Unpopular War

The terms of the agreement have been gradually revealed since last Thursday, when Trump first suggested that “final points” of a ceasefire had been “accepted by all parties.” Not until Wednesday were the 14 points of the MoU made public.

Still, the staggered release has only partially shielded the deal from hawkish criticism. Another factor is that Republican lawmakers are largely reluctant to confront Trump, who has a track record of challenging and defeating dissenters within the party.

Even some of the loudest pro-Israel hawks have refrained from criticizing Trump since the terms were released. Senator Lindsey Graham, an enthusiastic supporter of the war, said the MoU “would be beneficial” for the US.

Overall, Republicans have been much more lenient with this preliminary deal than with the 2015 nuclear agreement signed by former President Barack Obama. Unlike that deal, the current MoU aims to address an ongoing conflict. The US and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28 without direct provocation.

Public opinion polls show broad American opposition to the conflict, which has also bolstered arguments for diplomacy in some conservative circles. The fighting forced Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, driving global oil prices higher. In the US, that has fueled inflation and economic instability, factors that could affect Republican prospects in the upcoming midterm elections.

Inside the MoU

The memorandum, signed on Wednesday, stipulates a regional ceasefire to end the war, requiring a halt to fighting not only in Iran but also in Lebanon. The deal would allow Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the US to lift its blockade against Iran. Tehran also reaffirms its long-standing position that it will not pursue nuclear weapons.

In exchange for that assurance, Iran would receive some economic relief. The US would lift sanctions on Iranian energy exports, increasing global supply and helping lower oil prices. Iran would also regain access to billions of dollars of its assets frozen by sanctions, though the MoU provides no specific timeline or mechanism for releasing the funds. It does, however, promise a $300 billion investment and reconstruction fund for Iran.

The preliminary agreement does not address the thorny issue of whether Iran’s uranium enrichment program will be allowed to continue. That issue is expected to be discussed in future negotiations, which are set to take place over the next 60 days. It also makes no mention of Tehran’s missile program, one of the stated reasons for the US-Israel war against Iran.

Ted Cruz Opposes the Deal

Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said that while some Republican lawmakers are following Trump’s shift, others are testing whether they can oppose the president’s diplomatic policy toward Iran.

Senator Ted Cruz, who called the deal “short-sighted,” falls into that category. “History teaches that handing billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to kill us is not a good idea,” Cruz told The Hill. Pro-Israel commentators, such as Fox News’ Mark Levin, have also described the MoU as “surrender to Iran and Hezbollah.”

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a think tank that has pushed for military action against Iran, also rejected the deal. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) issued a lengthy statement detailing what it sees as the MoU’s failures, including the lifting of sanctions and the lack of restrictions on Iran’s missiles and support for regional groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. AIPAC’s statement still praised Trump for bombing Iran.

“Formidable” Force

Matthew Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, said some pro-Israel hawks are being cautious in their criticism and have pointed fingers at Vice President JD Vance rather than Trump. Duss said that while the pro-war stance is unpopular, the influence of pro-Israel groups cannot be underestimated. “They have enormous funding for their think tanks and advocacy organizations. Despite having very small and waning public support, their ability to push their ideas within Washington policy discussions remains formidable,” he said.

For his part, Costello warned that pro-Israel advocates could work to undermine diplomacy with Iran through a long-term strategy. He pointed to how pro-Israel groups attacked the JCPOA deal, saying it suffered “death by a thousand cuts.” Trump ultimately abandoned that deal in 2018. “FDD, the neocons, the Republican foreign policy establishment made Obama’s deal toxic. And in the end, they found a president willing to destroy it,” Costello said.