President Trump is facing attacks from all sides. He doesn’t know who to trust.
And now a former Biden official has just dropped a wild confession about President Trump.
Trump’s Iran Strike Draws Surprising Praise from Critics
President Donald Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked a rare phenomenon: praise from some of his fiercest critics. The U.S. military operation, which struck sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan early Sunday morning, used up to 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program. While the move has ignited debate, it has also garnered unexpected support from political figures who typically oppose Trump.
Jamie Metzl, a former National Security Council staffer under President Bill Clinton and a Senate aide for Joe Biden, emerged as a prominent voice in this surprising chorus. In a Sunday morning post on X, Metzl, who supported Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, lauded Trump’s actions. “I voted for Kamala Harris and have been a vocal critic of many dangerous and undemocratic actions taken by President [Donald] Trump. 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,” he wrote.
Metzl framed the strikes as a necessary response to Iran’s long-standing hostility. “Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years. Its regime has murdered thousands of American citizens,” he continued. “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.” His comments highlight a belief that the operation addressed a critical threat, even if it came from a leader he often critiques.
The strikes followed Israel’s military operation against Iran’s nuclear program ten days earlier, which prompted Iran to launch missile attacks on Israeli cities and refuse nuclear negotiations. The U.S. action targeted key facilities linked to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, escalating tensions but also drawing attention to the strategic necessity of curbing Iran’s capabilities. Trump, in a Saturday night address, described the operation as a “very successful attack” that “completely and totally obliterated” nuclear enrichment facilities, warning Iran of “devastating attacks far greater” if it does not pursue peace.
Not all reactions were positive, however. Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned the strikes, calling them a “grave violation” of Trump’s constitutional powers and “clearly grounds for impeachment.” Her stance reflects a broader concern among some lawmakers about the legality and implications of unilateral military action. Yet, the push for impeachment has not gained universal traction among Democrats, revealing a fracture in the party’s response.
Democratic California Sen. Adam Schiff, appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” downplayed impeachment as an immediate response. Instead, he advocated for a war powers resolution to limit further military action. “We’ve seen what a high bar there is to impeachment when one party in Congress, the Republican Party, is willing to work completely in lockstep with the president. I think the better remedy, frankly, is if Republicans will show any backbone whatsoever, is to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action that is not purely defensive, that is designed to protect service members’ lives, American lives and our interests. That to me ought to be the most immediate step,” Schiff said.
Opposition to the strikes also crossed party lines. Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a resolution on June 17 to block Trump from engaging in “unauthorized hostilities” with Iran. Following the bombings, Massie called the action “not constitutional,” while Khanna urged Congress to convene and deliberate on their resolution.
Despite this, several congressional figures backed Trump’s move. Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, appearing on “Meet the Press,” described the strikes as “bold, brilliant, and effective.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota and Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman also expressed support, highlighting a rare bipartisan alignment on a Trump policy. This approval reflects a recognition of the strategic importance of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear threat, even among those wary of Trump’s broader agenda.
Metzl acknowledged the risks inherent in such actions. “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 posted. He also suggested that Harris, while preferable for democracy and social issues, lacked the resolve for such a bold move. “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 wrote.
Vice President JD Vance sought to clarify the scope of the operation, stating on Sunday that the U.S. is not “at war” with Iran but targeting its nuclear program specifically. This distinction aims to temper fears of a broader conflict while emphasizing the precision of the strikes. The use of Massive Ordnance Penetrators, designed to destroy deeply buried targets, reinforces the operation’s focus on dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The strikes have reignited debate over presidential war powers, with critics like Ocasio-Cortez and Massie arguing that Trump bypassed Congress. The Constitution requires congressional approval for declarations of war, but presidents have often cited national security to justify unilateral actions. The bipartisan resolution from Massie and Khanna seeks to reassert congressional authority, though its passage remains uncertain given Republican support for Trump.
Supporters of the operation argue that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed an imminent threat. Graham’s enthusiastic endorsement and Fetterman’s backing suggest that some see the strikes as a decisive step to protect U.S. and allied interests. The operation’s success in targeting key facilities has bolstered this view, though questions linger about Iran’s potential retaliation and the region’s stability.
The unexpected praise from figures like Metzl highlights a rare moment of agreement in a polarized political landscape. While Trump’s critics remain vocal on many fronts, the Iran strikes have prompted some to acknowledge his decisiveness. The operation’s long-term consequences, however, will be decided in the coming weeks and months.
