President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked a wave of reactions from political figures across the ideological spectrum. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton, a vocal critic of Trump’s policies, took to CNN’s “State of the Union” to praise the move, declaring it a “decisive action” and a “right call.” Bolton, who had previously been a prominent figure in Trump’s administration, emphasized the potential for long-term consequences, stating that the strike could lead to a”regime change in Iran” and “a huge change in the Middle East.”
Former GOP lawmaker Adam Kinzinger, who made headlines for his support of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race, also endorsed the president’s decision, calling it a “good call by the president.” Kinzinger’s public endorsement, coming after his involvement in the Democratic National Convention, highlights the unusual alignment between political figures who have often found themselves at odds with Trump. This support contrasts with the more critical voices from within the Democratic Party and some members of Congress who have raised concerns about the legality of the action.
Democratic and a few Republican lawmakers have criticized the strike, claiming it was conducted without congressional authorization. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., asserted that the move was unconstitutional, while Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., called for legislative action under the War Powers Resolution. These criticisms underscore the ongoing debate over the extent of executive power in matters of foreign policy and warfare. The situation highlights the complex interplay between national security interests and democratic oversight mechanisms within the U.S. government.
The strike, which Trump described as a “very successful attack,” has also drawn support from retired military officials. General Barry McCaffrey, a former U.S. Army general, praised the operation’s strategic and military effectiveness, noting that Iran was in a weakened condition and that the U.S. had the technology to carry out a long-term impact on its nuclear program. Retired General Mark Kimmitt, another prominent figure in military circles, echoed these sentiments, calling the use of “deception and trickery” a key component of the operation’s success. These endorsements from former war leaders suggest a widespread belief in the tactical soundness of the decision, despite the political controversy surrounding it.
Amid the mixed reactions, the strike has become a focal point of broader discussions about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Critics, including some far-left and anti-Israel voices, have dismissed Trump as a “antiwar president” for his actions, while others, including The Atlantic’s Eliot Cohen, have acknowledged the decision as a rare success for Trump’s administration. The ongoing debate highlights the contentious nature of U.S. military interventions and their implications for international relations. As the situation continues to evolve, the focus remains on the legal, political, and strategic ramifications of Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.