House Speaker Mike Johnson told Newsmax he speaks with President Trump "almost every day" about the Iran conflict and that the president's top condition in ongoing negotiations is simple: Tehran can never possess a nuclear weapon.

Johnson made the remarks in an interview with Newsmax host Todd Starnes recorded Monday and set to air Tuesday. The Louisiana Republican described a 60-day negotiation window involving Middle Eastern nations, NATO allies, and other countries, talks focused on securing and disposing of Iran's enriched uranium while reopening the Strait of Hormuz to global commerce.

"We have to finish the job, so to speak," Johnson said. "That means we've got to ensure, of course, his number one condition is that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon."

Johnson frames the stakes in blunt terms

The Speaker left no ambiguity about why the administration views Iran's nuclear ambitions as an existential threat, not just to Israel or the Gulf states, but to global stability. Iran continues uranium enrichment activities that Western nations contend exceed civilian energy needs. Tehran has denied seeking a weapon.

Johnson dismissed those denials in language that drew a straight line between Iran's nuclear program and its record as a state sponsor of terrorism:

"You can't have the largest sponsor of terrorist organizations with a nuclear weapon. It would be a disaster for the whole world."

That framing tracks with the broader posture Trump administration officials have taken. They have repeatedly warned that Iran's nuclear ambitions threaten the United States and its allies across the Middle East and Europe.

The 60-day negotiation clock

Johnson described the current diplomatic window as a 60-day negotiation period, though he did not specify when the clock started or what triggers its conclusion. The talks cover uranium enrichment levels, disposal of enriched material, and what Johnson called "other things that may still be in the country."

He also identified the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical oil shipping lanes, as a key piece of the puzzle. Disruptions there have contributed to rising energy prices worldwide, and Johnson framed its reopening as a near-term priority that would benefit consumers and economies globally.

"In the meanwhile, we can get the Strait of Hormuz reopened for commerce, because that's important for everybody around the world."

The Speaker's tone was measured but firm. He acknowledged the gravity of the situation without signaling panic, telling Starnes he is "praying for a resolution" while making clear that any deal must meet the president's core demand on nuclear capability.

Military strikes and the war powers fight

Johnson's interview comes against a backdrop of direct U.S. military action. President Trump authorized Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, as National Review reported. The strikes prompted a bipartisan push from Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who introduced a war powers resolution demanding a congressional vote.

Johnson shut that effort down. He argued that presidents of both parties have exercised the same commander-in-chief authority under Article II of the Constitution for 80 years. "I don't think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don't think it's necessary," he said.

The Speaker went further on social media, defending Trump's decision to act without waiting for a congressional vote. "The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do," Johnson wrote. "Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act."

That position has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. But Johnson has rallied votes to defeat the war powers resolution, keeping the House from forcing a floor debate on the question while military operations and diplomatic negotiations continue simultaneously.

Israel's role and the administration's calculus

The Trump administration warned lawmakers before the strikes that Israel was "determined to act with or without us," Fox News reported. That warning framed the president's decision not as an act of aggression but as a calculated move to maintain American leadership in a conflict that was going to escalate regardless.

For Johnson, this context reinforces the case for executive action. If the United States had waited for a lengthy congressional debate, the argument goes, Israel would have struck Iran's nuclear sites on its own, potentially without the coordination, intelligence sharing, or diplomatic leverage that comes with American involvement.

The Speaker has navigated these national security questions while simultaneously managing a fractious House Republican conference on domestic issues. His recent handling of DHS funding disputes drew sharp criticism from within his own caucus, and he has had to broker compromises that tested conservative patience.

Daily conversations with the president

Johnson's claim that he speaks with Trump about Iran "almost every day" signals a level of coordination between the White House and the House that goes beyond the usual legislative relationship. The Speaker positioned himself not just as a supporter of the president's Iran policy but as an active participant in the decision-making loop.

"I talk with the president about it almost every day. He certainly understands that he wants it to be resolved quickly, but it must be done in the right way."

That last phrase, "done in the right way", carries weight. It suggests the administration is not looking for a quick political win but for a durable outcome that eliminates Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. Johnson's language throughout the interview reflected the same posture: urgency paired with discipline.

Meanwhile, the Speaker continues managing domestic legislative battles that test his ability to hold the conference together. The recent fight over DHS funding saw Republican members who pledged to block the bill ultimately reverse course, a dynamic that illustrated both the difficulty and the necessity of Johnson's position as the man who has to count votes while the world burns.

What remains unanswered

For all the Speaker's clarity on the administration's top-line demand, no Iranian nuclear weapon, significant questions remain open. Johnson did not detail which specific Middle Eastern nations or NATO allies are participating in the 60-day talks. He did not describe the current status of Iran's enrichment program in any detail. And he offered no specifics on how the administration plans to verify the securing and disposal of enriched uranium.

Iran's formal response to the negotiation framework, if one has been given, was not addressed. Neither was the question of what happens if the 60-day window closes without a deal.

Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have worked together on a two-track legislative strategy on other fronts, but the Iran situation operates on a different timeline, one driven by centrifuges, not committee markups.

The potential economic fallout from a prolonged conflict hangs over every calculation. Rising energy prices from Strait of Hormuz disruptions hit American consumers directly. A resolution that reopens that shipping lane and neutralizes Iran's nuclear program would deliver tangible benefits at home and abroad.

The bottom line

Johnson closed his interview with Starnes the way he opened it, with prayer and a demand for results.

"Our fingers crossed, we're praying for a resolution there, and one that ensures the safety and the prosperity of Americans and everybody else for that matter."

Prayer is fine. But the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism does not abandon nuclear ambitions because someone asks nicely. The administration's willingness to strike first and negotiate from strength is the only reason there is a 60-day window at all. Whether that window produces a real deal or just buys time is the question that matters now, and the answer will define this presidency's foreign policy legacy.