MAGA War Hawks Rage Over Trump’s Proposed Iran Deal
MAGA hawks like Hugh Hewitt and Mark Levin are blasting Trump’s one-page Iran ceasefire as too soft, demanding zero enrichment and regime change, while the president warns of ‘one big glow’ if talks fail.
MAGA war hawks are turning on Donald Trump for floating a minimalist peace plan with Iran. The proposal, reported as a single-page document, would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lock in a 30-day truce while negotiators chase something bigger. Conservative commentators greeted the idea with contempt, insisting it hands the regime breathing room it doesn’t deserve.
Hugh Hewitt, who once called the Iraq invasion one of the wisest decisions George W. Bush ever made, demanded far stricter terms: “No enrichment, ever. HEU to us stat. No more proxies. Turn on the internet.” Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America told The Hill that if Iran is as desperate as Trump claims, Washington should simply dictate the outcome. The Wall Street Journal editorial board warned Trump not to repeat Barack Obama’s mistake of trusting future Iranian behavior.
Mark Levin went further, writing that any deal resembling the Axios report would let the Iranian regime survive, intensify brutality against its own people, and possibly topple Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in October elections. Levin made no reference to the civilian deaths and displacement already caused by the U.S.-Israeli campaign in Iran and Lebanon. He added that future presidents could not be counted on to enforce any agreement, citing the Democratic Party’s supposed march toward “Marxists-Islamists.”
Trump himself has mixed signals. After fresh exchanges in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran attacking three U.S. warships, the U.S. striking an Iranian oil tanker and targets near Bandar Khamir, Sirik, and Qeshm Island, he insisted the ceasefire still holds. Then he threatened: “If there’s no ceasefire, you’re not gonna have to know, you’re just gonna have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran.” The phrase has been interpreted as either nuclear saber-rattling or a promise of overwhelming conventional bombing. Fox News later reported U.S. strikes on empty Iranian oil tankers, suggesting the administration believes bombs will force the strait open.
So far the pressure campaign has produced no visible progress toward ending the conflict. Fuel prices remain elevated, the world economy is feeling the strain, and Iran has not surrendered. The hawks’ position is clear: better to keep fighting than accept any deal that leaves the current regime intact and enrichment capability untouched. Trump, for his part, says the Iranians “want to sign it a lot more than I do.”
The contradiction sits in plain view. A president who campaigned against endless wars now faces his own coalition demanding he reject any off-ramp short of total capitulation. Whether the one-page plan is serious diplomacy or another negotiating bluff, the loudest voices on the right have made their preference unmistakable: more violence over any compromise that falls short of regime change.
Original reporting: The New Republic.
More in National
- HBO's 'War' Offers Classy-Trashy Divorce Drama with West and Miller
Anthology series debuts with a sharp, well-cast first season centered on a bitter London divorce between two lawyers.
- Putin Claims Baltic Rights Violations But Denies War Plans in Europe
Kremlin leader claims response strategy relies on humanitarian grounds and international law.
- Canadian Potash Giant Drops $500M on Vancouver Port Upgrade to Secure Global Food Supply
The massive investment aims to boost exports to non-U.S. markets.