MAGA largely falls in line on Trump's Iran strikes
President Donald Trump's sudden announcement Saturday night that he bombed three Iranian nuclear sites has skeptics of U.S. military action against Iran largely falling in line.
The prospect of strikes against Iran had sparked backlash from Democrats and days of infighting within Trump's MAGA coalition, but after the president posted on Truth Social that the U.S. has bombed Iran, several GOP critics cheered the strikes as a limited action. Several top Democrats denounced the strikes as illegal and warned they could drag the U.S. into another Middle East war.
The prospect of U.S. strikes on Iran had sparked debate between Republicans pressing for the U.S. to aid in regime change and isolationist voices who warned a full-scale war would betray Trump's 'America First' approach.
'Iran gave President Trump no choice,' Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks, said on X. 'For a decade he has been adamant that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. Iran decided to forego diplomacy in pursuit of a bomb. This is a surgical strike, operated perfectly. President Trump acted with prudence and decisiveness.'
Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump's one-time pick for the attorney general post who had warned of the Middle East conflict turning into another drawn out war for the U.S., said on X that the president's strike didn't necessarily portend a larger conflict, and likened it to the strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani during Trump's first term
'President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike — one and done,' Gaetz wrote. 'No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!
Some Republicans had expressed doubts that bombing Fordow (also known as Fordo) would end the threats, including Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But after the strikes, Sheehy called Saturday's military action the 'right decision.'
'To the naysayers out there, this isn't starting a war, this is ending one,' he said. 'Iran has been at war with America for 46 years. The Iranian people should rise up and put an end to this murderous regime.'
Democrats, meanwhile, were largely unified in opposition to the strikes, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority even if the destruction of Iran's nuclear program is a positive goal.
Trump shocked Washington and the country with a post revealing that U.S. aircraft had already bombed three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The move drew recriminations from critics — and even some allies — who argued Trump had no legal authority to launch the offensive strikes against Iran's nuclear program.
Top Democrats on the House and Senate Intel Committees — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), both members of Gang of Eight — were reportedly not briefed before the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.
'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop,' Himes said on X.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed Trump's strikes as reckless and unauthorized, demanding a full classified briefing for Congress and warning it risks 'a disastrous war in the Middle East.''Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,' Jeffries said in a statement.
But Trump's fellow Republicans who'd pressed for the president to join Israel's military operations against Tehran quickly cheered the decision.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the Senate's most hawkish Republicans, said the bombing was 'the right call,' and that 'The regime deserves it.'
Some hawkish Republicans argued ahead of the strikes that Trump had a historic opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program despite potential retaliation from Iran against America's bases and allies in the Middle East.
'Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years,' Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). 'We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans.'
House Speaker Mike Johnson was briefed on the strikes ahead of time, a person with direct knowledge of the matter told POLITICO. In a post on X, Johnson called it 'America First policy in action.'
'The President's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' he wrote.
Still, the attack left some MAGA isolationists distressed. And it could ramp up pressure for votes in the House and Senate on war powers legislation on Iran when Congress returns next week.
Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon, who has been wary of U.S. military involvement, was livestreaming on his show as the president made the announcement. Bannon argued that Trump should use his address Saturday evening to 'talk to MAGA' to explain why he opted to attack Iran.
'This is not Constitutional,' said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on X following the president's post. The Kentucky lawmaker has clashed with Trump and is one of the most vocal Republican detractors of U.S. involvement in Iran. This week, Massie, along with several House Democrats filed a House resolution seeking to block U.S. involvement in the conflict.
'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional,' conservative Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) tweeted. 'I look forward to his remarks tonight.'
Progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of the Democrats who teamed with Massie, said lawmakers should 'immediately return to DC' to approve their resolution 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.'
It's unclear what legal justification the administration is using to support its attack on Iran, an ambiguity that could fuel attempts to rein Trump in. Across the Capitol, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has planned to force a vote on his own resolution to block action against Iran without congressional authorization and could do so as soon as this week.'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran,' Kaine said on X. 'And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years.' So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment.'
Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is pushing his own Iran legislation, slammed Trump's strike in a stop at his 'Fight Oligarchy' tour in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The crowd chanted 'No more war' in unison with raised fists as Sanders passionately called into question the president's legal authority for hitting Iran.
'Not only is this news that I've just heard this second alarming, that all of you have just heard, but it is so grossly unconstitutional,' Sanders said. 'All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
With fateful decision, Trump gambles his presidency on war
President Donald Trump's decision Saturday to strike Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities was an extraordinary bet that he could eliminate a nuclear program that has bedeviled multiple presidents while avoiding another long-running Middle East conflict of the sort he and his supporters have long denounced. What happens next will have profound consequences for his presidency. If Iran is sufficiently weakened that it cannot meaningfully retaliate, Trump will have delivered a blow against a longtime adversary that will send a message to China, Russia and other global rivals that he will not shy from using military power when necessary.
Hamilton Spectator
20 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Nations react to US strikes on Iran with calls for diplomacy
The U.S. strike on Iran fueled fears that Israel's war with Tehran could escalate to a wider regional conflict, and other countries began reacting Sunday with calls for diplomacy and words of caution. President Donald Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved. In the end, it took just days to decide, and Washington inserted itself into Israel's campaign with its early Sunday attack. It remained unclear early how much damage had been inflicted, but Iran had pledged to retaliate if the U.S. joined the Israeli assault. Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region. Here is a look at reaction from governments and officials around the world. United Nations U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the United States. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement on the social media platform X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.' New Zealand New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters urged 'all parties to return to talks.' He wouldn't tell reporters Sunday whether New Zealand supported President Trump's actions, saying they had only just happened. The three-time foreign minister said the crisis is 'the most serious I've ever dealt with' and that 'critical further escalation is avoided.' 'Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action,' he said. China A flash commentary from China's government-run media asked whether the U.S. is repeating 'its Iraq mistake in Iran.' The online piece by CGTN, the foreign-language arm of the state broadcaster, said the U.S. strikes mark a dangerous turning point. 'History has repeatedly shown that military interventions in the Middle East often produce unintended consequences, including prolonged conflicts and regional destabilization,' it said, citing the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. It said a measured, diplomatic approach that prioritizes dialogue over military confrontation offers the best hope for stability in the Middle East. Japan Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is expected to hold a meeting with key ministers Sunday afternoon to discuss the impact from the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to Japan's NHK television. Japan's largest-circulation newspaper Yomiuri is distributing an extra edition on the attack in Tokyo. South Korea South Korea's presidential office said it would hold an emergency meeting Sunday to discuss the security and economic ramifications of the U.S. strikes and potential South Korean responses. Australia Australia, which shuttered its embassy in Tehran and evacuated staff Friday, continued to push for a diplomatic end to the conflict. 'We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security,' a government official said in a written statement. 'We note the U.S. President's statement that now is the time for peace.' 'The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's how Iran could retaliate after US strikes on its nuclear program
Iran has spent decades building multi-tiered military capabilities at home and across the region that were at least partly aimed at deterring the United States from attacking it. By entering Israel's war, the U.S. may have removed the last rationale for holding them in reserve. Thet could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon with what remains of Iran's disputed program after American strikes on three key sites. A decision to retaliate against the U.S. and its regional allies would give Iran a far larger target bank and one that is much closer than Israel, allowing it to potentially use its missiles and drones to greater effect. The U.S. and Israel have far superior capabilities, but those haven't always proven decisive in America's recent history of military interventions in the region. Ever since Israel started the war with a suprise bombardment of Iran's military and nuclear sites on June 13, Iranian officials from the supreme leader on down have warned the U.S. to stay out, saying it would have dire consequences for the entire region. It should soon be clear whether those were empty threats or a grim forecast. Here's a look at what Iran's next move might be. The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20% of all oil traded globally passes, and at its narrowest point it is just 33 kilometers (21 miles) wide. Any disruption there could send oil prices soaring worldwide and hit American pocketbooks. Iran boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines that could potentially make the strait impassable, at least for a time. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea. The U.S., with its 5th Fleet stationed in nearby Bahrain, has long pledged to uphold freedom of navigation in the strait and would respond with far superior forces. But even a relatively brief firefight could paralyze shipping traffic and spook investors, causing oil prices to spike and generating international pressure for a ceasefire. The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops stationed in the region, including at permanent bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Arab Gulf countries just across the Persian Gulf from Iran — and much closer than Israel. Those bases boast the same kinds of sophisticated air defenses as Israel, but would have much less warning time before waves of missiles or swarms of armed drones. And even Israel, which is several hundred kilometers (miles) further away, has been unable to stop all of the incoming fire. Iran could also choose to attack key oil and gas facilities in those countries with the goal of exacting a higher price for U.S. involvement in the war. A drone attack on two major oil sites in Saudi Arabia in 2019 — claimed by the Houthis but widely blamed on Iran — briefly cut the kingdom's oil production in half. Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance — a network of militant groups across the Middle East, is a shadow of what it was before the war ignited by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel out of the Gaza Strip — but it still has some formidable capabilities. Israel's 20-month war in Gaza has severely diminished the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, and Israel mauled Lebanon's Hezbollah last fall, killing most of its top leadership and devastating much of southern Lebanon, making its involvement unlikely. But Iran could still call on the Houthis, who had threatened to resume their attacks in the Red Sea if the U.S. entered the war, and allied militias in Iraq. Both have drone and missile capabilities that would allow them to target the United States and its allies. Iran could also seek to respond through militant attacks further afield, as it is widely accused of doing in the 1990s with an attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina that was blamed on Iran and Hezbollah. It could be days or weeks before the full impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites is known. But experts have long warned that even joint U.S. and Israeli strikes would only delay Iran's ability to develop a weapon, not eliminate it. That's because Iran has dispersed its program across the country to several sites, including hardened, underground facilities. Iran would likely struggle to repair or reconstitute its nuclear program while Israeli and U.S. warplanes are circling overhead. But it could still decide to fully end its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon three years later, but it had the freedom to develop its program without punishing airstrikes. Iran insists its program is peaceful, though it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA assess Iran hasn't had an organized military nuclear program since 2003. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons. ___ Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
