Ex-Clinton official applauds Trump's 'courageous' Iran call, doubts Harris would've had the nerve
A former Clinton-era National Security Council staffer broke with his party and heaped praise on President Donald Trump's successful strikes on Iran over the weekend, while remarking former Vice President Kamala Harris would have likely lacked the "courage" to execute such a mission if she were commander-in-chief.
"I am not a fan of many of Donald Trump's actions, but I will speak openly and honestly when he takes bold steps defending America's interests, as he did tonight," Jamie Metzl, founder of the international social group One Shared World, posted to X on Saturday evening.
Metzl served on former President Bill Clinton's National Security Counci and was former President Joe Biden's deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he heaped praise on Trump repeatedly on X over the weekend, while also taking a shot at Harris' lack of "courage and fortitude."
"But I'm not a blind tribalist and am perfectly comfortable praising President Trump for bold and courageous actions in support of America's core national interests, as he took last night," Metzl posted to X on Sunday morning.
"Although I believe electing Kamala Harris would have been better for our democracy, society, and economy, as well as for helping the most vulnerable people in the United States and around the world, I also believe VP Harris would not have had the courage or fortitude to take such an essential step as the president took last night," he added.
Metzl continued in his X messages that "Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years," and was aiming to build a nuclear weapon with the intention of wielding it over the U.S and its allies.
"Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years. Its regime has murdered thousands of American citizens. Its slogan 'death to America' was not window dressing but core ideology. It was racing toward a nuclear weapon with every intention of using it to threaten America, our allies, and the Middle East region as a whole. No actions like this come without risks, and I imagine the story will get more complicated over time, but that's why these types of decisions are complicated," he wrote.
Fox News Digital reached out to Harris' office regarding Metzl's post, but did not immediately receive a reply.
Metzl's comments are among a cacophony of Democratic elected officials and traditional anti-MAGA voices who have come out to praise Trump since the successful attack on Iran, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer."
"The destruction of Iran's nuclear program is essential to ultimate peace in the Middle East. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue — dealing with the Iranian threat is central to America's national security. The world is safer because of the actions of our brave service members. I'm praying for the safety of our service members in the region," New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer said in a statement over the weekend, for example.
"As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS," Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman wrote on X on Saturday. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world."
While New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, a frequent Trump critic, wrote in an opinion piece that Trump made a "courageous and correct decision that deserves respect, no matter how one feels about this president," while fellow Times columnist David French also said it was the "right decision" on social media.
Other Democrats and frequent Trump critics, such as New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, have slammed Trump over the strikes, arguing they bypassed Congress.
Trump announced the Saturday evening strikes on Iran in a Truth Social post that was not preceded by media leaks or speculation that strikes were imminent. The unexpected social media post was followed just hours later by a brief Trump address to the nation while flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.
"A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," Trump said from the White House late on Saturday in an address to the nation regarding the strikes. "Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success."
The strikes "obliterated" Iranian nuclear facilities and backed the nation into a corner to make a peace deal, Trump said. This mission was also celebrated by Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine as one that was cloaked in secrecy and intentionally deceptive to confuse the enemy.
"It involved misdirection and the highest of operational security. Our B-2s went in and out of… these nuclear sites, in and out and back, without the world knowing at all," Hegseth said. "In that way, it was historic."
The operation included the longest B-2 spirit bomber mission since 2001, the second-longest B-2 mission ever flown and the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, Hegseth and Caine said during the Sunday press conference.
Operation Midnight Hammer followed Israel launching preemptive strikes on Iran on June 12 after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program. Netanyahu declared soon afterward that the strikes were necessary to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
32 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Wants to ‘Make Iran Great Again'
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Donald Trump raised the idea of toppling Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei yesterday, it wasn't just the idea that was surprising. It was the particular phrase he used to describe it. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' he posted yesterday on Truth Social. The phrase became toxic for a reason. Two years ago, an essay in the Claremont Review of Books noted that regime change entered the popular lexicon in 'the early days of the 9/11 wars, when the Bush (43) Administration argued that the security of America and of the entire world depended not merely on defeating hostile countries militarily but on changing their governments into ones more inherently peaceable and favorable to our interests.' Of course, regimes change all the time, but regime change came to mean 'external, forcible transformation from 'authoritarianism' or 'dictatorship.'' This sounds very much like what Trump is discussing. Having switched from discouraging Israeli military strikes against Iran to joining them, he appears to now be toying with broader ambitions. (Trump offers few endorsements stronger than calling something 'politically incorrect.') But the writer of the Claremont Review essay, a prominent right-wing intellectual, warned about such projects. 'We know how that worked out. Regimes were changed all right, but not into democracies,' he wrote. 'And some of them—e.g., the one in Afghanistan—20 years later changed back to the same regime American firepower had overthrown in 2001.' That writer was Michael Anton. Today he is the director of the policy-planning staff at the State Department (a bit of an oxymoron in this administration), and in April, the White House named him to lead the U.S. delegation at technical talks with Iran on a nuclear deal—negotiations that are presumably irrelevant for the time being. Trump's abrupt shift has thrown the MAGA right into acrimony. In truth, the president has never been a pacificist, as I wrote last week. During the 2016 GOP primary, Trump cannily grasped public anger at the Iraq War and turned it against his rivals. Thinkers such as Anton and politicians such as Vice President J. D. Vance then tried to retrofit a more complete ideology of retrenchment and restraint onto it, but Trump is an improviser, not an ideologue. No one should have been too surprised by the president's order to bomb. Still, his rhetorical embrace of regime change was stunning even to those who never bought into his identity as a dove, and certainly to some of his aides. Perhaps Anton was not surprised to see his view so cavalierly discarded; after all, he once likened backing Trump to playing Russian roulette. But Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were unprepared for the change in rhetoric. Rubio solemnly told Fox Business that the U.S. is not at war with the country it just dropped hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance on. Vance, on Meet the Press, insisted, 'Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out.' A few hours later, Trump contradicted him directly, in what would have been embarrassing for someone still capable of the emotion. Vance's views on foreign policy are deeply shaped by the Iraq War, in which he served. Now his boss is at risk of speedwalking that conflict one country to the east. The Iraq War was the product of months of preparation by the George W. Bush administration: military mobilization, avid though unsuccessful attempts to rally international support, an extended period of manufacturing consensus in Congress and in the American public. Yet despite that work, and as even proponents of regime change in Iran acknowledge, the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War was a disaster, perhaps the worst American foreign-policy blunder in history. The U.S. government had good war plans for getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime but had not effectively thought through what would happen after that. Trump has done even less of that thinking, and leads a nation far more politically divided and warier of foreign intervention. Americans have long viewed Iran negatively: A Fox News poll before this weekend's airstrikes found that roughly three-quarters of them view Iran as a 'real security threat.' Still, another poll earlier this month found that most don't want the U.S. to get involved in armed conflict there. A Pew Research Center poll in May even found that slightly more Americans think that the United States is its own 'greatest threat' than that Iran is. Trump's flippant transformation of 'Make America great again' into 'Make Iran great again' exemplifies the hubris of the Iraq War project that he had promised to leave behind. Just as U.S. officials claimed that Iraq could be easily and quickly converted into an American-style democracy, Trump wants to export his catchphrase to Iran, where the implementation would be even hazier than it is here. Iran is a country of some 90 million people, not a dollhouse to be rearranged. Can regime change work? The answer depends on how success is defined. In 1973, for example, the U.S. backed a coup in Chile, toppling the leftist leader Salvador Allende. It worked: Allende was killed and replaced by Augusto Pinochet, who created a stable, market-based, U.S.-friendly Chilean government. But doing that involved horrifying repression and the killing and disappearances of thousands of critics, leaving a black mark on the U.S. record. In another case of regime change, the U.S. government helped topple Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. This, too, was an immediate success. Mossadegh was removed, and the Washington-friendly Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored to power. But the legacy of the moment stretched on much longer. The shah was also brutally repressive, and Iranians remembered the 1953 coup bitterly. In 1979, a revolution swept Iran, deposing Pahlavi and installing a virulently anti-American government. That regime still rules in Tehran—for now, at least. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Iran launched strikes on a U.S. base in Qatar, which were intercepted by Qatar's air-defense system, according to the Qatari government. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them the chance to contest their removals. President Donald Trump called on 'everyone' to ' keep oil prices down ' after America's recent attack on Iranian nuclear sites sparked fear of higher oil prices. Dispatches Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read Extreme Violence Without Genocide By Graeme Wood Signs of violent criminality are ubiquitous in South Africa. Electric fences and guard dogs protect homes containing something worth stealing. Reported rapes, carjackings, and armed robberies all occur far more frequently than in the United States. In Bloemfontein, one of the safer cities, I asked a hotel clerk for directions to a coffee shop, and she said it was 'just across the road,' not more than 500 feet away. When I headed out on foot, she stopped me and said that for my safety, 'I would prefer that you drive.' More From The Atlantic Culture Break Play. In Death Stranding 2, people play as an unlikely hero: a courier who trips over rocks and experiences sunburn. It's the Amazonification of everything, now as a video game, Simon Parkin writes. Disconnect. Franklin Schneider has never owned a smartphone. And, based on the amount of social and libidinal energy that phones seem to have sucked from the world, he's not sure he ever wants to.
Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
Charlamagne says Dems 'sound like hypocrites' for demanding congressional approval for strikes
Radio host Charlamagne tha God called out Democrats on Monday for their outrage about President Donald Trump launching strikes on Iran without congressional authority, saying they turned a blind eye when Democrats recently did the same. The U.S. launched a surprise strike using B-2 stealth bombers on Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities on Saturday. "All three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Dan Caine said during a briefing at the Pentagon on Sunday morning. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., called out Trump for the strikes during a Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," arguing the head of state should have begun the process by first "coming to Congress and asking for authorization to do this." He continued, "That's the constitutional approach to this. He could have talked to us about what the goal is and what the plan is ahead of time. And we could have had a discussion about it." Charlamagne agreed, but argued Democrats like Kelly should look in the mirror. "Morgyn, this is one of those times when politicians sound like hypocrites, because Mark Kelly is right, the president should get congressional approval," he said about the national war powers debate. "But there have been a bunch of presidents who have ordered strikes without congressional approval." "Barack Obama did it against Libya. Joe Biden ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria without congressional approval. Bill Clinton did it with - 'Kosovo' I think you pronounce it?" he recalled. "So presidents ordering military action without congressional approval has become pretty routine." Co-host Morgyn V. Wood noted that this issue is now being cited for possible impeachment. "So why didn't it lead to an impeachment for everybody else? Like, when Barack Obama did it, when Biden did it, when Clinton did it?" Charlamagne asked. Wood said that there have been calls for impeachment over presidents' military actions without congressional approval before, but Charlamagne was not persuaded. "I don't even remember hearing about it during the Joe Biden administration," Charlamagne said. "I guess that's just because of the way Trump has been moving," co-host DJ Envy said. "But we didn't hear about it when Obama did it. We didn't hear about it when Biden did it." "I do remember when Obama did it," Charlamagne said. "When Obama did it, I do remember, you know, people in Congress saying he needed congressional approval, and they were making it a thing. I don't remember the Biden thing at all. I don't remember that even making a headline." After Wood recalled the widespread outrage over Biden's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Charlamagne said he recalled Biden's lack of accountability for military missteps after an NBC News piece headlined, "Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine."
Associated Press
39 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Texas governor calls for special session after vetoing a bill to ban THC-infused goods
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a bill that would have banned consumable hemp products containing THC ingredients in the state, but said he's open to lawmakers passing a new effort to regulate what has become a booming business. In fact, he's already summoned lawmakers to a special session in July to do just that. But the Republican's 11th-hour veto Sunday night, delivered just minutes before the bill would become law, drew sharp criticism from some of his top conservatives allies who want to eradicate a business they consider dangerous. The veto was a victory for thousands of retailers and hemp farmers in Texas who worried they could be put out of business, and for advocates who said a ban would harm people who use THC to treat PTSD and other serious conditions. At a press conference Monday, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has led the effort to crack down on the THC market, said he was confused by the governor's actions and that the veto amounts to legalizing marijuana in Texas. Here's what else to know: What is THC and how is it regulated? Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the compound that gives marijuana its psychoactive properties. It can be derived from hemp, a plant that is related to but different from marijuana and is used to produce textiles, plastics and other goods. A 2018 federal law allowed states to regulate hemp, which must contain less than 0.3% THC, but variants of hemp can be modified to have more potent concentrations. This has opened up a lucrative market of hemp-derived THC goods that are available in many convenience stores across the country, including in states like Texas where marijuana is strictly prohibited. Critics of the Texas bill pointed to the thousands of jobs and millions in revenue the industry has brought into the state. Many retailers have also said that it allows people to access the medicinal benefits of marijuana without navigating the state's limited medical marijuana program. Supporters of the bill have expressed concerns about the dangers of THC consumables because there is little federal oversight into how they are manufactured. The fate of THC in other states Several other states have moved to regulate hemp-derived THC goods. States where marijuana is legal, such as Colorado, restrict THC consumables with age limits and caps on potency per serving. Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and other states where recreational marijuana is prohibited have also pushed for more regulation. Texas' bill would have been one of the more far-reaching because it did not allow any amount of THC, according to experts. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida refused to sign similar legislation last year over concerns that it would hurt small businesses. The governor's veto On Sunday, the Texas governor called for a special session to take up the THC bill and other proposals this July. In his veto of the bill, Abbott encouraged lawmakers to consider age restrictions and regulation around the marketing and packaging of THC consumables rather than an outright ban to avoid hemp farmers, pharmacists and others from being prosecuted for owning small amounts. 'Legislators could consider a structure similar to the way alcohol is regulated, with strict enforcement by an agency like the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission,' Abbott said in his proclamation vetoing the bill. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the president of the Senate, said Monday that regulation instead of prohibition would be the same as legalizing marijuana in the state. 'I'm not going to legalize marijuana in the state of Texas,' Patrick said. 'By this veto, he has now put us in a box.' Supporters of the veto Many industry groups and retailers applauded the governor's decision on Monday and thanked him for taking their concerns seriously. 'This is a victory for all Texans who have spoken loudly and clearly,' the Hemp Industry & Farmers of America said in a statement Sunday. 'This is what we have been asking for,' the Texas Hemp Coalition said in an Instagram post in response to the governor's proclamation. 'Thank you for trusting us!' ___ Lathan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
