The Clash of Ideologies: Diplomacy vs. War
An influential group of GOP hawks has launched a behind-the-scenes lobbying offensive pressing President Donald Trump to not only back off his administration’s quest for a nuclear deal with Iran but greenlight an attack on Tehran by Israel.
The campaign is raising alarms among Trump and his allies, who have launched a counteroffensive to keep the president’s diplomacy on track.
During a private lunch with the president at the White House last Wednesday, conservative talk show host Mark Levin told Trump that Iran was days away from building a nuclear weapon, an argument Trump’s own intelligence team has told the president is not accurate, according to an intelligence official as well as another Trump ally familiar with the matter. Levin urged Trump to allow the Israeli government to strike Iranian nuclear sites, which Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would torpedo the diplomacy.
Levin has been waging a public war against Trump’s longtime friend and special envoy leading talks, Steve Witkoff, who also attended the meeting. They were joined by GOP megadonor Ike Perlmutter, the onetime Marvel Entertainment executive who is friendly with Witkoff.
On a separate front, MAGA loyalists have been warily eyeing Rupert Murdoch’s papers, particularly the New York Post, as they’ve savaged Witkoff, suggesting at one point that he’s a mouthpiece for Qatar. The allegations have infuriated some in Trump’s inner circle, who see them as an effort to undercut the talks.
Murdoch has, meanwhile, privately complained to confidants about Witkoff’s effort, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The Lobbying Dynamics and Public Response
“They’re trying to push the president to make a decision that’s not what he wants,” a senior administration official told POLITICO. This person, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. “There’s clearly a lobby for war with Iran vs. those who are more aligned with the president, that know he is the one that has been able to bring them to the negotiating table.”
The lobbying has triggered a coordinated effort to defend Trump and Witkoff’s diplomatic posture. Hours after Levin’s meeting with Trump, Tucker Carlson, who had clearly been alerted to the gathering by someone familiar with what happened, took to X to accuse Levin of trying to bully the U.S. into war.
“There is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None,” Carlson tweeted. “So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change — young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government.”
The Complexities of U.S. Foreign Policy Stances
The private lobbying and public sniping highlight a vast breach in the GOP over U.S. foreign policy just months into Trump’s first term. While many hawkish members of the old guard have viewed Witkoff’s diplomatic effort with skepticism, the more restrained wing of the party has been adamant about defusing tensions with Tehran.
In the middle of the tug-of-war is Trump, who ran on a promise of ending what his followers see as endless U.S. foreign adventurism and war. Some Trump allies believe the president will stand his ground — and even predict the pressure tactics are starting to grate on him.
“Levin and Murdoch are all over Trump all the time — I actually think they hurt their case because I know Trump,” said one longtime Trump confidant. “Once he’s kind of made his mind up, you can come at it later from a different angle, but you keep pressing, he digs in.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO the president “has always been willing to listen to a wide range of voices on every issue — but ultimately, he is the final decision-maker.”
“With respect to Iran, President Trump has made his own opinion clear: he would like to pursue diplomacy and make a deal, but IF Iran makes a deal impossible, President Trump has other options on the table,” she added.
The Uncertainties of U.S.-Iran Relations
Trump sounded a note of skepticism about a potential deal while speaking to reporters Monday afternoon. While noting that his administration will engage with Iran for their latest talks on Thursday, Trump said the Iranians are “just asking for things that you cannot do.”
“They do not want to give up what they have to give up — you know what that is: They seek enrichment. We can’t have enrichment,” he said. “We want just the opposite. And so far they are not there. I hate to say that because the alternative is a very, very dire one.”
While both camps have a tendency to frame their positions as binary choices — a deal or war, an attack on Iran’s program or a guaranteed Iranian nuclear weapon — the reality is less clear.
If the nuclear talks fail, that would increase the likelihood that the U.S., Israel, or both would feel compelled to act militarily. But the U.S. could also more immediately look to ratchet up economic pressure on Tehran to see if it might eventually return to talks, a strategy some Republicans are already pushing privately.
As for those favoring a strike on Iran’s facilities, many military and nuclear experts say that U.S.-Israeli action would probably only temporarily set back Iran’s program rather than completely destroy it.
Other MAGA figures, from Charlie Kirk to activist Jack Posobiec, have used their public profiles to bolster the case for diplomacy. They’re encouraging Trump to stick to his negotiations and resist what they fear could be an Israeli-led sleepwalk into war.
Vice President JD Vance, perhaps the most powerful leader of the anti-war faction of the party — and who has close ties with many online MAGA influencers — has also weighed in. Just after Levin’s meeting with Trump, he came to Witkoff’s defense in a podcast with Theo Von.
Witkoff recently gave Iran a proposal for a deal that would allow Tehran to enrich uranium at low levels but eventually become part of a regional enrichment consortium. Iran has made clear it will not abandon its domestic enrichment capability, while Trump has set that as a red line. That’s left Witkoff to try to bridge the gap with a solution, which Iran has not yet formally responded to.
“It is a very creative proposal that allows both sides to claim a win,” a senior administration official said.
Witkoff will meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi for a sixth round of talks on Friday or Sunday.
Advocates for military action or ratcheting up significant pressure on Iran say this is the best opportunity in years to strike Iran after Israeli attacks weakened its regional proxies.
Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank and a fierce critic of Iran’s government, said the public debate has weakened the perception that the U.S. would be prepared to strike or back Israel if necessary.
“Those who are advocating that there be no credible military threat are making it more likely there’ll be a bad deal, and more likely that the Israelis will be forced to strike,” he said.
Trump allies and administration officials wary of military action have been seeing stories in some conservative media that they privately discount as plants by hawks and other pro-military, Israel-aligned groups. The officials spent much of last week working to discredit a Fox News story about an Austrian intelligence agency report that suggested Iran has grand plans to develop nuclear weapons that will help it assert dominance in the region.
The posturing also comes on the heels of the latest assessment by the U.N.’s nuclear energy watchdog, IAEA, which has concluded that Tehran has increased its stockpile of “near-bomb uranium” over the past three months. That’s given Tehran the ability to fuel “roughly 10 weapons, up from around five or six” when Trump took office, according to the New York Times.
U.S. intelligence has pegged Iran’s so-called breakout time — the amount of time it needs to produce enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear weapon — at one to two weeks, U.S. officials say. But officials also continue to assess that Iran has not made the decision to actively go for a nuclear weapon.
If Iran were to pursue the bomb, experts and diplomats disagree on how long it would take to weaponize it, ranging from a few months to over a year.
There’s one big wildcard in all of this: People on both sides of the debate aren’t sure what Trump will do. One person noted that the president has been so firm in his beliefs that he fired Michael Waltz as national security adviser in part because he’d been coordinating with the Israelis for an Iran offensive.
Still, even among those pressing for diplomacy, there is concern about the president’s penchant for changing his mind depending on who he’s last spoken to. There’s a fear Trump — who has threatened to bomb Iran if they don’t come to heel — could act on rhetoric many largely deem negotiating bravado.
“[Trump is] very solid in what he wants and letting Witkoff do his thing,” said one person close to the talks. “But depending on who he hears from, he may move a little bit.”
Some of the hawks in and around the lobbying effort, meanwhile, say that Trump has made clear that he is prepared to use military force if necessary. Pursuing diplomacy at any cost, they say, is a misreading of what he wants.
“The good news is Donald Trump is … not an isolationist. He’s bombed Yemen, he’s taken out [IRGC leader Qasem] Soleimani and [ISIS leader Abu Bakr al] Baghdadi. He’s done what he needs to do. But [isolationism] is a force that continues to try pressuring him,” Levin said during a recent episode.
In some ways, the push and pull with Israel has been going on for months. Israel has been privately imploring the administration to join them to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Trump has headed off that pressure.
When Ron Dermer, Israel’s strategic affairs minister and a confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, came to Washington in early May, Trump asked him to prevent Israel from attacking Iran while Trump was on his Middle East swing, according to one Trump ally and one U.S. official familiar with the conversations. The president stayed another attempt again in late May. Israeli officials have told the Trump administration that they believe they have a limited window to strike.
Trump’s decision to favor diplomacy over military action — at least for now — also highlights the growing rift between Washington and Israel. Trump’s pro-Israel actions from his first term have given him cover from attacks from Netanyahu or others who would suggest he is not pro-Israel enough. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. embassy there, recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords, among other actions.
But now the two close allies are at odds over Iran. Even before the dispute over strategy, Israelis have expressed disappointment in the U.S. decision to end its campaign on the Iran-backed Houthis without notifying the Jewish nation, and bypassing a visit to Israel on the president’s Middle East swing.
“The president is not going to support war… But I’m telling you, these guys won’t take no for an answer,” said a longtime Trump ally. “This is why there’s a breach in the Bibi-President Trump relationship. … Israel isn’t reading the room. The MAGA movement doesn’t support military operations.”
