Conservative radio host and Fox News contributor Hugh Hewitt is now reportedly pushing back hard against a reported framework for a potential peace agreement with Iran, raising concerns just days after President Donald Trump appeared on his program.
The criticism follows a report from Axios journalist Barak Ravid, who said the White House believes it is nearing an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding. According to the report, the proposed document would aim to end the ongoing conflict while setting the stage for more detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.
Ravid cited multiple sources indicating that while no deal has been finalized, both sides are closer than at any point since the war began. The U.S. is also reportedly expecting Iran to respond within 48 hours on several key elements of the proposal, leaving a narrow window for progress.
Israeli journalist Amit Segal outlined the reported framework in a post on X, describing a plan that would gradually unwind both U.S. and Iranian naval blockades during the negotiation phase. The proposal also includes a U.S. commitment to ease sanctions over time and release tens of billions of dollars from frozen Iranian assets.
Another key component involves limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment. According to the reported outline, negotiations are ongoing over how long a freeze would last, with some sources suggesting at least 12 years and others estimating up to 15. The framework is also said to include a provision that would extend the freeze if Iran violates the agreement. Additionally, two sources indicated that Iran could agree to transfer its stockpile of highly enriched uranium خارج the country.
Hewitt, however, sharply criticized the reported terms, arguing they fall short of what he believes is necessary to ensure long-term security. In a series of posts, he called the proposal a “terrible deal” and suggested that any agreement should impose stricter conditions on Iran.
Among his objections, Hewitt argued that uranium enrichment should be prohibited entirely and that highly enriched uranium should be transferred immediately. He also called for an end to Iran’s proxy activities and urged greater transparency, including broader internet access within the country.
The conservative commentator also questioned why the United States would consider easing pressure at a moment he described as advantageous. “President Trump never gives up leverage,” Hewitt wrote, suggesting that relaxing terms now could undermine a stronger negotiating position.
In a follow-up message, Hewitt speculated that the reported framework might not represent a final proposal but instead a preliminary trial balloon. He noted that special envoys involved in the talks, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have previously stepped away from negotiations, implying hesitation to be associated with a deal viewed as insufficient.
Hewitt also warned that such terms could draw criticism from lawmakers, referencing the possibility of opposition from figures like Sen. Tom Cotton. He argued that the framework, as described, risks undermining recent gains and could amount to what he characterized as a strategic misstep.
While negotiations appear to be advancing, Hewitt’s response highlights a broader concern among some conservatives: that the desire to end a conflict—however costly—should not come at the expense of long-term security or negotiating strength.
[READ MORE: Morgan, Kelly Clash With Levin Over Israel Debate, Warn Against Blurring Criticism With Hatred]
