U.S. President Donald Trump’s military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites have sparked a wave of bipartisan support, with prominent Republicans and at least one Democrat praising the decision as a necessary and decisive response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The operation, part of a broader U.S. strategy to counter Iran’s nuclear program, has been widely endorsed by figures like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who called it ‘the right call’ on X. Other Republicans, including Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., also endorsed the decision, arguing that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities poses an existential threat to global security.
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., also joined the chorus of support, stating that Trump’s actions were ‘the correct move’ to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Fetterman emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong military stance against the country, which has been a longstanding sponsor of terrorism. However, the strikes have not been without controversy, as some lawmakers have raised constitutional concerns. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who authored a war powers resolution to prevent the U.S. from engaging in military actions in Iran, criticized the strikes as ‘not constitutional,’ arguing that such actions require congressional approval. Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the need to return to Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution and prevent what he described as an ‘endless Middle East war.’
Trump’s decision has also been framed as a demonstration of his administration’s commitment to a ‘peace through strength’ approach. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., stated that the operation serves as a ‘clear reminder’ to adversaries that Trump’s policies are ‘consistent and clear’ in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities. The strikes have been described as a decisive move to address a ‘world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,’ which the administration claims ‘chants ‘Death to America’.’ Nevertheless, the actions have highlighted the ongoing political and legal tensions over how the U.S. can use its military power, with some lawmakers calling for greater congressional oversight and others insisting that the president has the authority to act unilaterally in the face of existential threats.