Trump’s Iran Nuclear Strikes Win Bipartisan Praise Amid War Powers Clash

In a rare moment of bipartisan unity, President Donald Trump earned praise from both sides of the aisle for ordering U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday. The decisive action, aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, was hailed as a bold move to neutralize a global threat, though it sparked debate over constitutional authority.

Republican stalwarts like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina cheered, posting on X, "Good. This was the right call. The regime deserves it." Even Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania broke party lines, declaring, "Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities."

The strikes, described by Trump as "very successful," echoed his 'peace through strength' mantra. Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas emphasized, "Ensuring our existential enemies don’t acquire catastrophic weapons is non-negotiable." Former Rep. Matt Gaetz dubbed Trump a "peacemaker," likening the operation to the targeted 2020 strike on Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

House Speaker Mike Johnson underscored Trump’s resolve, noting Iran’s refusal to disarm left no choice but force. "This prevents the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism from wielding the most lethal weapon," he said. Sens. Tom Cotton and John Barrasso echoed the sentiment, framing Iran’s 46-year "war of terror" as justification.

Yet, not all agreed. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) slammed the strikes as unconstitutional, demanding Congress reconvene to vote on war powers. Their dissent highlights a deeper divide over who holds the reins in matters of war.

Behind the headlines, this move signals Trump’s unyielding stance on Iran and a gamble to reshape Middle East dynamics without plunging into prolonged conflict.