Gop Hawks Appear To Be Winning Over Trump On Iran

President Donald Trump, who criticized his predecessor for allowing new wars to break out on his watch, is increasingly listening to a small group of Iran hawks who have been pushing to go tougher on Tehran.

Trump has become more receptive to arguments by those advocating more military engagement, including Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, who leads Central Command, as well as Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, according to an administration official, a former official and another person familiar with discussions, all granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.

Graham said he spoke with Trump on Monday evening while the president was still at the G7 meeting in Canada and encouraged him to lean into Israel’s ongoing effort to eradicate Iran’s nuclear program.

"He called me right before he left,” Graham said. “I said, ‘Mr. President, this is a historic moment. Four presidents have promised that they won't get a nuclear weapon. On your watch, you can fulfill that promise.’"

Trump is now openly considering using “bunker buster” American bombs to target Iran’s heavily fortified Fordo enrichment facility — a move that seemed unthinkable even a week ago, when he repeatedly confirmed he had asked Israel to hold off on bombing Iran’s program so that diplomacy could play out. Only the U.S. possesses the 30,000-pound bombs capable of reaching Iran’s underground nuclear sites, and those can be carried only by American B-2 stealth bombers because they are so heavy.

“The movement right now is away from diplomacy and toward U.S. involvement,” a second Trump administration official told POLITICO late Tuesday. “We are moving toward taking out Iranian nuclear facilities.”

Trump has taken a newly menacing posture toward Iran, calling Tuesday for the regime’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” in a spate of social media posts, while hunkering down with national security aides in the Situation Room.

“The hawks seem to have the upper hand,” said a Western diplomat familiar with administration discussions, granted anonymity to speak about ongoing talks.

The White House argues that Trump isn’t deviating from previous positions.

“He has always been against forever wars,” said Alex Pfeiffer, a White House spokesperson. “But he hasn’t been against military engagement,” noting that Trump directed the assassination of Iran's most powerful military commander Qasem Soleimani in his first term.

Vice President JD Vance, who has previously advocated a more limited approach in dealing with Iran, posted a lengthy defense Tuesday of Trump’s consideration of striking Iran and offered his support.

“He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,” Vance said, adding, “of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.”

The White House firmly believes U.S. involvement can be restricted to a series of tactical strikes against specific facilities, without descending into an extended war or turning into an effort oust the regime in Tehran, as POLITICO previously reported.

Notably, when Trump convened a meeting of national security aides in the Situation Room Tuesday afternoon, Vance was on Capitol Hill speaking to Republican senators and unable to take part.

Jon Hoffman, a research fellow in defense and foreign policy at the libertarian Cato Institute which has opposed American involvement, said those advocating restraint on Iran haven’t “given up the fight.”

“A lot of individuals internally are really trying to hold their ground,” he said. “This is very concerning, because up to this point, Trump, in terms of his quote, unquote ‘restraint’ stance, it's just all been rhetoric. There's really been no real test.”

That said, it’s unclear whether Trump’s recent statements suggesting he is warming to direct confrontation are the direct result of these conversations.

His openness to a more forceful approach also stems from his feeling that the isolationists in and around the administration haven’t given him enough options and that Trump had tried their way, according to a GOP foreign policy operative and one of the people familiar with Trump’s conversations with Iran hawks.

The restrainers are also still in key roles. Vance’s national security adviser, Andy Baker, has seized operational control of the National Security Council, according to the administration official and a former national security official. The former official described Baker as “an isolationist through and through” and said “he’s become essentially the day-to-day director.”

Still, the non-interventionists are treading cautiously, talking to Trump but not openly looking to limit his choices. Sen. Josh Hawley said he spoke with Trump on Tuesday and praised the president’s approach.

“He does not want a broader conflict. So I think he’s managed this pretty deftly at this point,” Hawley said.

He added that Trump doesn’t need congressional authorization to strike Iran and downplayed Trump’s dramatic call on Truth Social for Tehran to evacuate. “He’s telling Iran, 'You’re not going to get a nuke,'” Hawley said. “Come to the negotiating table and get a deal with him — or you can face Israel.”

Trump is still weighing options.

“He was hoping for a deal, and he might still get one,” said one Trump ally close to members of the president’s foreign policy team who was granted anonymity to discuss the president’s thinking. “But you heard him saying how successful Israel's initial assault was. Supporting it after the fact and even considering joining it and piling on gives him a way to claim a major foreign policy win after a lot of his diplomatic efforts have stalled out.”

The U.S. has surged tankers and warships into the Middle East in preparation to defend against any attacks on American troops and assets.

On Wednesday, Trump said “nobody knows” what he will decide to do.

“I may do it. I may not do it,” he told reporters outside the White House.

“Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,” Trump continued. “And I said, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn’t you negotiate?’ I said to people, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country.’”

John Sakellariadas, Katherine Tully-McManus, Joe Gould and Jake Traylor contributed to this report.