Trump REVERSED the tables on Iran: Hagerty

Hagerty Says Trump Has “Reversed the Tables” on Iran as Nuclear Talks Advance

As the Trump administration signals progress toward a possible understanding with Iran, Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee is casting the moment as a decisive test of American strength — and, in his view, a sharp break from the diplomatic approach pursued by previous Democratic administrations.

Appearing on Fox News during Memorial Day weekend, Hagerty, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the latest reports from negotiations suggested that President Trump had successfully forced Tehran into a weaker bargaining position. The central objective, Hagerty argued, remains unchanged: Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Before addressing the substance of the talks, Hagerty opened by acknowledging American service members, veterans and those currently in harm’s way. The timing was significant. The negotiations over Iran are unfolding against the backdrop of U.S. military pressure, regional uncertainty and a broader debate in Washington over whether force, sanctions and diplomacy can produce a more durable result than past nuclear agreements.

“I’m pleased to see we continue on the path that President Trump has clearly articulated,” Hagerty said. “He’s not going to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

The senator’s remarks came after new reporting indicated that the administration was moving closer to a memorandum of understanding with Iran. Details remain incomplete, and the White House has not yet released a full version of what is being discussed. But the early outline has already triggered intense debate among Republicans, including some who are normally aligned with Trump on foreign policy.

At the heart of the discussion is Iran’s nuclear program, particularly whether Tehran would retain any ability to enrich uranium. According to administration officials cited in the earlier reporting, there would be no final agreement if Iran continued enrichment. That point appears to have reassured Hagerty, who said any acceptable deal must remove Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon altogether.

For Hagerty, the comparison with the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is central. He sharply criticized that Obama-era deal, arguing that it left Iran on a long-term path toward nuclear capability. Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA during his first term, calling it one of the worst agreements ever made by Washington.

Hagerty echoed that argument, saying Trump’s approach was fundamentally different. Rather than relying on what he called “fake diplomacy and bribery,” Hagerty said, Trump had used military force and pressure to put the Iranian regime in a position where it must negotiate seriously.

That framing reflects a broader Republican defense of Trump’s foreign policy style: apply pressure first, negotiate from strength later. In this telling, Tehran is not coming to the table because of goodwill, but because it has been weakened militarily, economically and strategically.

“Trump has reversed the tables,” Hagerty said. “He’s been the one to deliver.”

The phrase captured the senator’s view of the moment. To Hagerty, Iran no longer has the leverage it once had. The regime, he argued, has suffered damage to its economic, technological and military capacity, leaving it unable to negotiate as it did during the Obama years.

Whether that assessment proves accurate will depend on the final terms of any agreement — and whether those terms can be verified and enforced. For now, however, Hagerty is signaling confidence that the administration will not accept a deal resembling the JCPOA.

That confidence is not universally shared among conservatives.

The early reports about a possible agreement sparked criticism from several prominent Republican figures, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Pompeo was especially blunt, warning that the emerging deal sounded like something out of the “Wendy Sherman playbook,” a reference to one of the key negotiators of the Obama-era Iran agreement. He accused the administration, in effect, of risking sanctions relief that could empower the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The White House responded aggressively. Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, dismissed Pompeo’s criticism and said the former secretary of state did not know what he was talking about. His response was unusually personal and reflected the administration’s frustration with criticism from figures who were once among Trump’s closest foreign policy allies.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also moved to quiet concerns. Asked about the criticism, Rubio said it was “absurd” to believe that Trump, after demonstrating his willingness to use force, would agree to a deal that left Iran in a stronger position regarding its nuclear ambitions.

Hagerty appeared to accept Rubio’s reassurance. While he said lawmakers still need to see the final agreement, he suggested that the administration’s public posture was exactly what he expected to hear.

“There will be no final agreement until it’s clear that Iran has no path to enrich or to have a nuclear weapon,” Hagerty said.

That standard sets a high bar. It suggests that any acceptable deal must go beyond temporary restrictions and address the underlying infrastructure that would allow Iran to quickly resume nuclear progress. It also suggests that sanctions relief, if offered, would have to be tied to strict Iranian concessions.

Hagerty predicted that the final terms would be “strict” and “very enforceable.” He also suggested that Obama-era officials were worried about being embarrassed by a Trump deal that, in his view, would achieve what the JCPOA failed to accomplish.

The political stakes are obvious. If Trump secures a deal that removes Iran’s enrichment capacity and neutralizes its nuclear threat, Republicans will likely portray it as a historic vindication of maximum pressure. If the agreement leaves loopholes, critics on both the right and left will accuse the administration of accepting a weaker arrangement than promised.

For the American public, the issue is not merely partisan. A nuclear-armed Iran would transform the Middle East, potentially triggering a regional arms race and increasing the risk of direct war. But another extended U.S. military campaign in the region would also carry enormous costs. The administration is attempting to thread a narrow path: use force and sanctions to compel concessions, but avoid an open-ended conflict.

Hagerty’s appearance, however, moved beyond Iran. The interview quickly turned to another major dispute roiling Washington: a proposed Justice Department-related fund intended to compensate Americans who, Republicans argue, were harmed by the political weaponization of government.

Congress left town without meeting Trump’s June 1 deadline to fund immigration enforcement, in part because of objections in the Senate to the proposed anti-weaponization fund. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly went to Capitol Hill to reassure skeptical lawmakers, only to face a tense meeting that Cruz described as one of the roughest he had witnessed in his Senate career.

Hagerty said he was not present for that meeting because he was presiding on the Senate floor at the time. But he made clear that he supports the broader purpose of the fund.

According to Hagerty, the Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department and other government agencies against Trump and his allies. He cited the leak of Trump’s tax returns, the search of Mar-a-Lago and investigations that he said targeted Republican senators’ phone records. Hagerty described those actions as violations of constitutional rights and democratic principles.

Those are serious accusations, and Democrats would strongly dispute Hagerty’s characterization. But for many Republicans, the idea of government weaponization has become a central theme of the Trump era. They argue that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies were used not merely to investigate wrongdoing, but to damage political opponents.

The proposed fund, Hagerty said, is not designed to enrich Trump, his family or members of Congress. Rather, he said, it is intended for people who suffered real financial harm as a result of government action.

He pointed to an example discussed earlier in the program: a Wisconsin judge who had represented Trump and allegedly spent millions of dollars in legal fees fighting the Biden Justice Department. Hagerty said that kind of financial damage deserves a remedy.

“This needs to be accountability,” Hagerty said.

Critics of the fund have raised several concerns. One is the optics of creating a government-backed compensation system connected to lawsuits and claims involving Trump, who sits at the center of many of the underlying political disputes. Another is the possibility that people involved in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, including those accused of assaulting police officers, could seek taxpayer-funded payouts.

Asked about those concerns, Hagerty said the debate had focused too heavily on worst-case speculation. He returned to the central Republican argument: that the justice system had been misused against American citizens and that some form of compensation may be necessary for those who suffered monetary consequences.

For Hagerty, financial compensation is only one part of the answer. He said there must also be accountability for officials inside the Justice Department, the FBI or any other agency that Republicans believe was improperly used for political purposes.

The political challenge for the administration is clear. The fund may resonate with Trump’s supporters, who see the former and current president as the victim of a yearslong institutional campaign. But it also gives Democrats an opportunity to argue that Republicans are using taxpayer money to reward political allies or rewrite the history of January 6.

Hagerty did not claim to know who designed the fund. He said he had no insight into whether Blanche or other officials were responsible for shaping it. But he defended the rationale behind it, describing the alleged weaponization of government as an extraordinary violation that requires a response.

The interview captured two of the defining themes of Trump’s current Washington: confrontation abroad and retribution at home. On Iran, the administration is presenting itself as using force to achieve what diplomacy alone could not. On the Justice Department, Republicans are arguing that the federal government itself must be investigated, restrained and made to answer for alleged abuses.

Both issues carry political risk.

An Iran deal that falls short of eliminating enrichment could divide Republicans and expose Trump to the same kind of criticism he leveled at Obama. An anti-weaponization fund that appears poorly defined could alienate senators, complicate broader legislative priorities and hand Democrats a potent talking point.

Yet Hagerty’s message was one of confidence. He portrayed Trump as a president who had changed the balance of power with Iran and as a leader willing to confront what Republicans see as deep corruption within the federal government.

The coming days may test both claims. On Iran, the administration will have to prove that any agreement is tougher, clearer and more enforceable than the one Trump abandoned years ago. On the Justice Department fund, it will have to explain who qualifies, who decides and how the money would avoid becoming a political liability.

For now, Hagerty is standing firmly behind the president.

In his view, Trump has forced Iran to negotiate from weakness, rejected the failures of the past and placed America in a stronger position. Whether that judgment holds will depend not on the rhetoric surrounding the talks, but on the terms that eventually emerge — and whether Tehran follows them.