In a surprising turn of events, prominent critics of President Donald Trump have publicly lauded the administration’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Among them, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time critic of Trump’s foreign policy, hailed the strike as a ‘decisive action’ and the ‘right call’ to address the growing nuclear threat from Tehran. Bolton, who has been a vocal critic of Trump’s approach to foreign relations, told CNN that the president’s decision was ‘better late than never,’ marking a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on a major foreign policy issue.
The strike, announced by the White House on Saturday, claimed to have ‘totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, with President Trump himself calling the operation a ‘spectacular military success.’ The administration emphasized the potential for regime change in Iran as a result of the attack, highlighting the gravity of the situation and the need for preemptive action against a potential nuclear threat. However, despite the administration’s claims, the decision has not gone without controversy, with several lawmakers and analysts raising concerns over its legality and long-term implications.
Former GOP lawmaker Adam Kinzinger, known for his support of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in 2024, also praised Trump’s decision, calling it a ‘good call by the president.’ Kinzinger’s endorsement, despite his political leanings, underscores the potential for broader consensus on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, the New York Times’ Bret Stephens, a fierce Trump critic, wrote that the president’s decision was ‘courageous and correct,’ acknowledging the necessity of taking action against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Similarly, The Atlantic’s Eliot Cohen praised the move, calling it a ‘right decision’ that marked a departure from previous administration failures in addressing the issue.
However, the strike has also attracted criticism from within the Trump administration and the political opposition. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, argued that the decision was unconstitutional, as it bypassed congressional authorization for the use of military force. Massie called for a return to the War Powers Resolution to ensure that such actions are subject to legislative oversight. Other lawmakers have also raised concerns about the potential for an ‘endless Middle East war,’ pointing to the risks of escalating regional tensions.
In addition to political criticisms, retired military officials have weighed in on the strike, with many expressing support for the operation. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who has been a vocal critic of past administrations’ foreign policies, called the strike ‘a decisive and bold move’ that could have significant long-term effects on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Similarly, retired Gen. Mark Kimmitt praised the administration’s use of ‘deception and trickery’ to execute the operation, noting the potential for saving American lives in the process.
Meanwhile, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, another Trump critic, acknowledged the difficulty of the decision but praised Trump’s leadership in addressing the nuclear threat. Christie argued that the president’s decision was in line with the broader need to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, drawing parallels to past failures in dealing with North Korea’s nuclear program. This sentiment reflects a broader debate within the United States about the best approach to containing Iranian nuclear advancements, with some advocating for a more aggressive strategy and others warning of the risks associated with such actions.
As the situation in the Middle East continues to evolve, the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities remains a significant event with wide-ranging implications. While some critics have praised the decision, others have raised concerns about its legality, long-term consequences, and potential to further destabilize the region. This episode highlights the complex interplay between domestic politics, international relations, and military strategy in shaping U.S. foreign policy in the face of nuclear threats.