'Decisive leadership': Nikki Haley, Mike Pence approve of Trump's 'Operation Midnight Hammer' on Iran
Nikki Haley and Mike Pence praised Trump's decision to attack Iran.
Republicans who moved away from
Donald Trump
, including his vice president during his first term,
Mike Pence
, endorsed his attack on Iran, which was codenamed 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. Even
Nikki Haley
, the former US ambassador to the UN, and the Republican leader who did not endorse Trump ahead of the 2024 election, praised Trump's action against Iran -- while the Make America Great Again group remained split over Trump's decision to attack Iran.
"Well done," Nikki Haley wrote to the president's announcement of completing a successful attack in Fordown, Nantanz and Esfahan in Iran.
— NikkiHaley (@NikkiHaley)
Mike Pence said Trump made the "right call" to deploy American forces to strike Iran's nuclear sits and he should be commended for his decision leadership. "Iran could never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Thanks to the resolve of our Commander in Chief and the courage and professionalism of our Armed Forces, America, Israel and the Free World are safer as a result.
Iran should now stand down and abandon any thought of retaliation against Americans or be prepared to face the consequences.
Tonight President @realDonaldTrump proved again that the United States of America is the Leader of the Free World and America Stands with Israel. Thank You Mr. President and God Bless Our Troops," Mike Pence posted.
'This is not Constitutional'
Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY), who repeatedly urged Trump to avoid getting dragged into the Israel-Iran war, said the president's bypassing the congressional authority to launch such military strikes was not Constitutional.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
임플란트 최대 할인 지원해드려요
임플란터
더 알아보기
Undo
Republican leader Marjorie Taylor Greene said the Israel-Iran war was not a US fight.
"Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear-armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer," MTG wrote.
Trump's former adviser Steve Bannon, who played a crucial role in Trump's Iran decision, was appalled by Trump's post-strike thanking of Netanyahu. Bannon said Netanyahu is the last guy to thank.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
With its strikes against Iran, US may be wading into a conflict it cannot manage
In what may prove to be a defining moment for Donald Trump's presidency, in the early hours of June 22, the US directly entered the Israel-Iran war. In a swift operation, US planes targeted three nuclear sites in Iran and retreated. The American media reported that US B-2 Spirit stealth bombers dropped 30,000-pound, GPS-guided, bunker buster bombs — GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) — on the underground site at Fordow, while the other two sites at Natanz and Isfahan were targeted by Tomahawk missiles. Breaking the news on Truth Social, Trump ended his post with 'Now is the time for peace.' The assertion seems to flow from his oft-repeated doctrine of 'Peace through strength'. However, the history of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, based on the same doctrine, certainly brought no peace to either of these nations or to the US. The bloodshed continued for years and extremist groups like al Qaeda and Daesh/Islamic State emerged from these wars to haunt the world. Could the US get bogged down with yet another war? What would it mean for Trump? Trump has often stated that his objective is to ensure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. However, over the past few weeks, Trump clearly listed two goals and one aspiration. The first goal was that Iran should negotiate a deal for a peaceful nuclear programme and totally give up enrichment capability, and the second goal was that Iran should surrender in the war with Israel. His aspiration was to see a regime change in Iran; he had even threatened possible action in this regard in the future. Has the targeting of three nuclear sites brought Trump closer to achieving his goals and aspirations? Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has emphasised that Iran will not bring its nuclear programme to 'zero'. A couple of hours after the US airstrikes, Iran restarted air attacks on targets in Tel Aviv and Haifa in Israel. Iranian officials have claimed that Fordow had been 'completely emptied and evacuated' a long time ago and that it did not suffer 'irreversible' damage. It is not hard to imagine Iran taking precautions by taking a cue from the US airstrikes on Houthi targets earlier. Western media reports had indicated that since late-March, the US had deployed six B-2 Spirit stealth bombers at the base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These bombers were reportedly used to drop a GBU-57 MOP on underground Houthi targets in Yemen, while the US was engaged in warding off attacks on US vessels in the Red Sea. Initially developed for 'psychological' effect, the 'MOP' was perhaps used to achieve a deal with the Houthis — which happened in May — with both sides pledging not to attack each other. It would be hard to ascertain whether uranium-enriching centrifuges and the stock of enriched uranium remain intact, without having international inspections or invading Iran. Moreover, Russia has clearly warned against the targeting of the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. Apart from the presence of hundreds of Russians building more nuclear facilities at the site, Russia had warned that an attack on the plant would have consequences comparable to the Chernobyl accident in the former USSR in 1986. The Chernobyl accident led to prolonged release into the atmosphere of large quantities of radioactive substances, including gases, aerosols and finely fragmented nuclear fuel particles. Due to specific conditions such as graphite fires and winds, radioactivity had spread across the northern hemisphere, mainly Europe, and was also recorded in the US, Canada and Japan. The targeting of nuclear sites which are not nuclear power plants, with the objective of destroying centrifuges used for uranium enrichment, remains a dangerous proposition too. These nuclear sites may also be storage sites for radioactive material, including Spent Fuel or High Level Waste (HLW), or even a research reactor. It is a great relief to the global community that the head of the Iranian National Centre for Nuclear Safety System has confirmed that no radioactive contamination or nuclear radiation was detected outside the targeted sites. By mid-morning, the IAEA too informed that no increase in 'off-site radiation levels' had been reported. The Saudi Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Commission independently confirmed the same for all Gulf Cooperation Council States. The Kuwaiti National Guard too stated that the radiation levels in the air and water remained stable across the country. The fallout of targeting nuclear sites is and will remain the key concern for regional and global nations, a fact the US cannot ignore. By naming his successors, the supreme leader of Iran has ensured that the regime remains intact in any eventuality. The US attacks on nuclear sites in a country that takes pride in its scientific prowess are likely to solidify public support for the supreme leader as a rallying point. In the Israel-Iran war, sabotage, miscalculations or accidents could still draw US troops into the theatre. It might be recalled that about 125,000 US and British troops had invaded Iraq in March 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein, trapping the US in a bloody war which, over eight years, killed 4,400 of its soldiers and injured several thousands. The US withdrew fully by December 2011, but the destabilisation of the region saw the emergence of Daesh in Iraq around 2012 and the rise of a Caliphate. The US-led coalition was forced to return to the theatre in 2014. The rest is history. As more questions will be asked about the remaining capability of Iran, will the US continue to indulge in adventurism that could result in nuclear catastrophe for the region and beyond? Trump's economic plans would come to a standstill if he needs to manage the physical, political and legal fallout of such actions. With the airstrikes, the US has lost the power to bring Iran to the negotiating table on its own. It would need help from Russia and Europe, and maybe also China, to pursue nuclear talks with Iran. The world is in a dangerous phase. The writer is a security analyst and former director general of police
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Par panel to discuss judges' code of conduct
A Parliamentary panel is set to discuss the code of conduct for judges in the higher judiciary , even as the government is poised to move an impeachment motion against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma . The judge is under scrutiny over the recovery of unaccounted for cash from his national capital residence. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, in a meeting on Tuesday, will discuss the issue and will also deliberate on the post-retirement assignments of judges. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "The Committee will hear the Secretary, Department of Justice on the subject 'Judicial processes and their reform' concerning issues of Code of Conduct for the judges of higher judiciary and taking up post-retirement assignments by judges," a notice sent by the committee secretariat informed members of the panel. The Committee of the Rajya Sabha is headed by BJP MP Brij Lal and has former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who is a nominated MP, former minister of state for law P P Chaudhary, TMC MPs Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and Kalyan Banerjee, Congress's Vivek Tankha, and DMK's P Wilson and A Raja as its key members. Live Events While Justice Varma is likely to be impeached, the Opposition has already given a notice for the same action against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav. After the cash recovery, Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. He has denied the charges against him. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat is also verifying the signatures of the MPs who signed the impeachment notice against Justice Yadav for an alleged hate speech he gave. The secretariat has already written to the MPs to confirm their signatures.
The Print
17 minutes ago
- The Print
Iran has fewer options & more risks than before. Its choices will affect all of Middle East
At the heart of this tectonic move was the deployment of the most penetrative weapon in the US arsenal—the GBU-57—used to target Iran's most fortified nuclear sites: the deeply hidden Fordow, along with Natanz and Isfahan. And with this strike, Trump continues the unbroken legacy of American presidents authorising military action in the Middle East. In a dramatic escalation this morning, the United States formally entered the war against Iran. While President Donald Trump had been publicly mulling his decision with vague references to a 'two-week window,' American B-2 bombers were already airborne—on a mission that would mark a seismic shift in the current US foreign policy. This marks a stunning departure for Trump, who won re-election on a promise that emphasised avoiding foreign military entanglements. Though initially hinting at restraint, he has now thrust the US directly into a volatile regional war. His abrupt mid-speech exit from the G7 summit in Canada suggested that something was brewing. That speculation was tempered by his two-week 'thinking period'—but all such ambiguity vanished with this morning's airstrikes, surprising Republicans, Democrats, and even Trump's own Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. Strategic deception The operation bore signs of strategic deception. Around 11 pm US time, six B-2 bombers were spotted heading west over the Pacific, refuelling midair near Hawaii, which now appear to have been decoys. In reality, another formation flew east from Missouri. These three B-2s undertook a 37-hour round-trip mission, refuelling midair before releasing a full payload of GBU-57s on Fordow. Each B-2 can carry two GBU-57s, suggesting that at least six of these 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators' (MOPs) were used. Fordow, located beneath a mountain and engineered to withstand conventional attacks, had been enriching uranium to 60 per cent—just short of weapons-grade—according to the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. This is the first time the GBU-57 has been used in combat. Weighing 30,000 pounds and capable of drilling through 200 feet of reinforced concrete, it's the 'grandfather of all bunker busters.' Until now, only its smaller cousin (GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast) had seen combat use, notably in Afghanistan. In his address to the nation, Trump praised the military's precision and confirmed all aircraft had returned safely, with no American casualties. But has Fordow's enrichment capacity truly been neutralised? While initial Battle Damage Assessments (BDAs) are emerging from satellite providers like Maxar, they cannot fully reveal what occurred 200-300 feet underground. Preliminary reports and Iranian statements suggest that the enriched uranium (Iran has over 400 kilograms spread across different sites) was moved to safer locations in advance, perhaps in anticipation of an imminent strike. It's worth recalling that during Israel's own operation—codenamed Rising Lion on 13 June—the focus was on bombing and disrupting the power supply to centrifuges at Natanz. However, neutralising Fordow was always beyond Israel's capability, underscoring the indispensable role of American airpower and assets. Also read: B-2 stealth bombers, 6 'bunker busters'—how US strikes on Iran unfolded What comes next? Iran is unlikely to accept this blow passively. Its initial response—launching a limited missile barrage on Israel—was muted, but Tehran has since declared that 'all options are open.' So what might those options be? The Iranian regime faces four broad paths: retaliate, collapse, accelerate its nuclear ambitions, or accept an 'off-ramp' by freezing enrichment for three years, as some backchannel discussions suggest. Yet, autocratic regimes are seldom inclined toward humility. Some form of face-saving retaliation seems inevitable before diplomacy can resume. Let's consider Iran's six primary retaliatory options, from most likely to most dangerous: Continue strikes on Israel: Iran still possesses around 1,200 missiles, both ballistic and hypersonic, and a substantial drone arsenal. It could continue targeting Israeli cities. This would serve domestic propaganda only, but would fall short of responding to a direct US attack. Activate Proxy Groups: Iran could mobilise Shia militant groups in Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain. However, with Hezbollah and Hamas significantly weakened, their capacity for meaningful retaliation may be limited too. That said, they are easy to launch and perhaps a safer option for wrecking instability while not playing with fire. Close the Strait of Hormuz: Iran's parliament has reportedly already approved the closure of this crucial oil corridor. But it amounts to mere signalling right now, as the final decision on the matter will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council. This critical waterway, however, has been seeing reduced shipping activity since tensions began to rise. A full closure would disrupt global oil supply and raise prices sharply. However, Oman shares maritime responsibility for the strait with respect to its management, and other regional players—concerned about oil stability—may oppose this move. Remember that oil prices are spiking already, and the region's sensitivity to that fluctuation remains imminent. Target US bases in Iraq: This remains the least dangerous way for Iran to hit back at the US. Iraq's weak defence posture and complex political landscape make it a vulnerable target, especially for indirect, deniable attacks, at best carried out by proxies. Iran had, in fact, targeted the Al Asad airbase in 2020, after the US killed Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. Strike the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain: Such an act would be seen as a declaration of war. The risks of escalation would increase dramatically, and it would compel a decisive U.S. second response. Attack Centcom Headquarters in Qatar: Perhaps the most extreme scenario. A strike at the United States Central Command – popularly abbreviated as Centcom – here would turn a contained conflict into a full-scale war and draw in global actors. Iran is certainly not prepared to handle this escalation. Based on the current scenario, Iran is unlikely to risk options five or six. Tehran understands that provoking the world's most powerful military could lead to its own destruction, when an off-ramp now exists. Also read: Iran's brutal regime is facing a reckoning. Consequences of US attack will go beyond Tehran Trump's gamble President Trump appears to be betting that one powerful blow, paired with stern rhetoric and overwhelming military might, will push Iran toward the negotiating table. It's a plausible theory—but not a guaranteed outcome. What if Tehran refuses? What if, out of desperation or pride, the Iranian regime takes an unthinkable step? The Trump administration may believe it's holding all the cards. But history shows that military superiority doesn't always translate to strategic success—especially in a region as combustible as the one in question. Iran today finds itself in an unprecedented moment of strategic loneliness. Russia, once a close ally and a steady buyer of Iranian drones for use in Ukraine, has stayed noticeably quiet, preoccupied with its own unending war in Europe. China, too, has offered no more than muted diplomatic platitudes and some technical help, which is not enough to help Iran alter the situation. Even Iran's religious and ideological partners in the broader Muslim world – the Ummah brotherhood – have resorted to lip service. In this strategic vacuum, Iran has fewer options and more risks than ever before. Its choices will now shape not just its own future, but the stability of the entire region. The Indo-Pacific costs Perhaps the most underdiscussed consequence of this strike so far is the reorientation of American focus back to the Middle East, at the expense of its Indo-Pacific commitments. For India, this is concerning. Relations between Washington and New Delhi have already strained in recent months, through issues ranging from trade demands to perceived US interference in India-Pakistan matters. Washington's post-Operation Sindoor closeness with Pakistan further complicates the equation. India, which had hoped for a deepened US presence in Asia to counterbalance China, may now find itself watching from the sidelines for the time being, wondering whether America can multitask or reorient in time, or whether its Middle East preoccupation will yet again overshadow its Indo-Pacific convergence. Where things go from here is still uncertain. Trump campaigned against endless wars, and yet, we are back in a familiar place: American bombers over the Middle East, oil prices rising, and an adversary vowing revenge. This could be a one-time strike meant to cripple Iran's capabilities and offer an offramp for all. Or it could be the beginning of a much longer, bloodier cycle of retaliation. For now, the GBU-57 has officially entered the theatre of war, and the world just got a lot more dangerous. Swasti Rao is Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
