Trump’s emerging Iran deal draws fire from Republican hawks and alarm in Israel, as Tehran downplays nuclear talks
An emerging US-Iran agreement touted by President Donald Trump as a potential end to the current conflict and a pathway to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is triggering an unusual backlash from senior Republican lawmakers and sharp anxiety in Israel, even as Iranian officials insist nuclear issues are not part of the negotiations and the final text still needs top-level approval in Tehran.
Background: Talks to end a war, with Hormuz at the center
Multiple outlets reported that US and Iranian officials have been signaling a deal could be near, framed around halting hostilities and easing maritime pressure in and around Hormuz. According to The Times of Israel (23 May), Trump said he was “50/50” on reaching an agreement or pursuing strikes, while Iran indicated the nuclear file was “not yet on the table.” The Guardian (24 May) reported Iranian officials telling Pakistani mediators that Supreme Leader approval and the security council were still needed and that “one or two clauses” remained unresolved.
Trump has presented the effort as a high-stakes choice: a “great” agreement or none at all. That message was echoed internationally by TASS (25 May) and ANSA (25 May), which also relayed Iran’s position that an agreement was not imminent and nuclear discussions had not occurred.
Key developments: “Nightmare for Israel” and a rare GOP rebuke
The draft terms being discussed—reported in US and Israeli coverage as involving sanctions relief and constraints that critics compare to the 2015 nuclear deal—have fueled a wave of Republican criticism. The Times of Israel (24 May) described senior GOP senators assailing what they called a “nightmare for Israel.” Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo compared the apparent framework to the 2015 agreement and said it would let Tehran “terrorize the world.”
The New York Times (24 May) similarly reported that Senate Republicans, including some of Trump’s close allies, cast doubt on the emerging deal as undercutting the president’s own war aims. The Guardian (24 May) characterized the pushback as a “rare rebuke,” with figures including Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham warning of a “disastrous mistake.”
The White House, however, publicly pushed back. Fox News (24 May) reported the administration “blasts” Cruz and Pompeo for portraying the negotiations as “appeasement,” framing the talks as an attempt to secure peace.
Competing narratives: Tehran’s caution vs Trump’s tougher public demands
Iranian messaging has emphasized resistance to pressure. The Tehran Times (25 May) quoted President Masoud Pezeshkian saying Iran “will not yield to pressure or excessive demands.” Another Tehran Times commentary (24 May) depicted Trump as constrained by Israel’s leadership and criticized what it described as contradictory US statements.
At the same time, Trump has publicly set out tougher-sounding requirements. Middle East Eye (25 May) and The Times of Israel (26 May) reported Trump saying Iran’s uranium must be “handed over or destroyed,” with international witnesses. That stance sits in tension with Iran’s repeated claim—carried by The Times of Israel (23–24 May), ANSA (25 May), and others—that nuclear issues are not part of the present talks.
Reactions and implications: Israeli political attacks and uneasy allies
In Israel, politicians across the spectrum have attacked the prospective agreement. The Times of Israel (23 May) reported Avigdor Liberman calling any deal “a catastrophe” and alleging it could unfreeze $110 billion in Iranian assets. On 25 May, The Times of Israel reported opposition leader Yair Lapid calling the deal a “disaster” and arguing it was “absurd” that Israel was not included, insisting Israel must maintain “freedom of action” regardless.
The Guardian (25 May) described growing alarm that the war’s initial talk of regime change could end with few strategic gains for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, capturing Israeli fears in a blunt formulation: “If Iran gets a bomb it will be Bibi’s.”
Current status: A deal “largely negotiated,” but still volatile
While Trump has said negotiations are proceeding and advisers such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio have suggested a deal could be close (ANSA, 25 May), events on the ground remain unstable. The Times of Israel (26 May) reported US strikes on Iranian missile sites despite a ceasefire, with Washington saying it acted to defend troops—yet Rubio maintained the deal was still possible and “a few days” from completion.
For now, the diplomacy appears to be advancing amid unresolved clauses, clashing political narratives in Washington and Jerusalem, and Tehran’s insistence that key decisions still await approval at the top.