MAGA largely falls in line on Trump's Iran strikes

President Donald Trump's sudden announcement Saturday night that he bombed three Iranian nuclear sites has skeptics of U.S. military action against Iran largely falling in line.
The prospect of strikes against Iran had sparked backlash from Democrats and days of infighting within Trump's MAGA coalition, but after the president posted on Truth Social that the U.S. has bombed Iran, several GOP critics cheered the strikes as a limited action. Several top Democrats denounced the strikes as illegal and warned they could drag the U.S. into another Middle East war.
The prospect of U.S. strikes on Iran had sparked debate between Republicans pressing for the U.S. to aid in regime change and isolationist voices who warned a full-scale war would betray Trump's 'America First' approach.
'Iran gave President Trump no choice,' Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks, said on X. 'For a decade he has been adamant that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. Iran decided to forego diplomacy in pursuit of a bomb. This is a surgical strike, operated perfectly. President Trump acted with prudence and decisiveness.'
Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump's one-time pick for the attorney general post who had warned of the Middle East conflict turning into another drawn out war for the U.S., said on X that the president's strike didn't necessarily portend a larger conflict, and likened it to the strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani during Trump's first term
'President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike — one and done,' Gaetz wrote. 'No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!
Some Republicans had expressed doubts that bombing Fordow (also known as Fordo) would end the threats, including Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But after the strikes, Sheehy called Saturday's military action the 'right decision.'
'To the naysayers out there, this isn't starting a war, this is ending one,' he said. 'Iran has been at war with America for 46 years. The Iranian people should rise up and put an end to this murderous regime.'
Democrats, meanwhile, were largely unified in opposition to the strikes, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority even if the destruction of Iran's nuclear program is a positive goal.
Trump shocked Washington and the country with a post revealing that U.S. aircraft had already bombed three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The move drew recriminations from critics — and even some allies — who argued Trump had no legal authority to launch the offensive strikes against Iran's nuclear program.
Top Democrats on the House and Senate Intel Committees — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), both members of Gang of Eight — were reportedly not briefed before the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.
'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop,' Himes said on X.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed Trump's strikes as reckless and unauthorized, demanding a full classified briefing for Congress and warning it risks 'a disastrous war in the Middle East.''Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,' Jeffries said in a statement.
But Trump's fellow Republicans who'd pressed for the president to join Israel's military operations against Tehran quickly cheered the decision.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the Senate's most hawkish Republicans, said the bombing was 'the right call,' and that 'The regime deserves it.'
Some hawkish Republicans argued ahead of the strikes that Trump had a historic opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program despite potential retaliation from Iran against America's bases and allies in the Middle East.
'Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years,' Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). 'We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans.'
House Speaker Mike Johnson was briefed on the strikes ahead of time, a person with direct knowledge of the matter told POLITICO. In a post on X, Johnson called it 'America First policy in action.'
'The President's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' he wrote.
Still, the attack left some MAGA isolationists distressed. And it could ramp up pressure for votes in the House and Senate on war powers legislation on Iran when Congress returns next week.
Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon, who has been wary of U.S. military involvement, was livestreaming on his show as the president made the announcement. Bannon argued that Trump should use his address Saturday evening to 'talk to MAGA' to explain why he opted to attack Iran.
'This is not Constitutional,' said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on X following the president's post. The Kentucky lawmaker has clashed with Trump and is one of the most vocal Republican detractors of U.S. involvement in Iran. This week, Massie, along with several House Democrats filed a House resolution seeking to block U.S. involvement in the conflict.
'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional,' conservative Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) tweeted. 'I look forward to his remarks tonight.'
Progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of the Democrats who teamed with Massie, said lawmakers should 'immediately return to DC' to approve their resolution 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.'
It's unclear what legal justification the administration is using to support its attack on Iran, an ambiguity that could fuel attempts to rein Trump in. Across the Capitol, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has planned to force a vote on his own resolution to block action against Iran without congressional authorization and could do so as soon as this week.'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran,' Kaine said on X. 'And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years.' So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment.'
Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is pushing his own Iran legislation, slammed Trump's strike in a stop at his 'Fight Oligarchy' tour in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The crowd chanted 'No more war' in unison with raised fists as Sanders passionately called into question the president's legal authority for hitting Iran.
'Not only is this news that I've just heard this second alarming, that all of you have just heard, but it is so grossly unconstitutional,' Sanders said. 'All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

4 minutes ago

• Forbes

The Strait Of Consequences: World Braces For Potential Energy Shock

ANKARA, TURKIYE - JUNE 17: An infographic titled "Strait of Hormuz" created in Ankara, Turkiye on ... More June 17, 2025. Connects oil and LNG production in the Middle East to global markets via the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. (Photo by Murat Usubali/Anadolu via Getty Images) There are several important energy chokepoints around the world, but none is more significant and vulnerable than the Strait of Hormuz. Now, following the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, the Iranian Parliament has reportedly voted to close this important energy transit chokepoint. Such a move could severely disrupt the world's energy markets. While the final decision still rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council--and Iran has failed to follow through on previous threats to close the Strait--the vote signals intent to weaponize one of the world's most economically sensitive maritime corridors. If carried out, the consequences would be swift, severe, and global. Let's take a closer look at how we got here—and why the stakes are so high. Background On June 21, the United States launched coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The strikes marked the most serious U.S.–Iran escalation in over a decade. The campaign featured B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles. In his remarks following the strike, President Trump struck a conciliatory tone, stating, 'Now is the time for peace.' Iran, unsurprisingly, interpreted it differently. Within hours, the Iranian parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz—a move the U.S. would certainly interpret as a major escalation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News, "If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours." Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters The accompanying picture illustrates why the Strait of Hormuz is so vital. At just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point--and significantly bordered by Iran--the Strait of Hormuz handles the transit of nearly 20% of global oil supply. But that's only part of the story. It is also a critical artery for liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit. Many important energy-producing countries rely on the Strait of Hormuz to get these products to market. There are three major global LNG producers, each with about 20% of the global market: The U.S., Qatar, and Australia. Qatar ships around 77 million metric tons of LNG annually, most of it passing through the Strait. Its customers include energy-hungry economies such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India, as well as parts of Europe. If Qatar is cut off, those nations lose part of their energy supply almost overnight. And LNG isn't as fungible as oil. While oil can be rerouted and drawn from strategic reserves, LNG infrastructure is far more rigid. Ships must be able to dock at specially equipped terminals, and production and liquefaction aren't easily shifted. The LNG market is fragile, and supply shocks can ripple fast and violently. Consequences of a Closure If Iran follows through with closing the Strait of Hormuz, the impact on global energy markets would be immediate and far-reaching. Energy prices would spike across the board. Oil could surge past $90 per barrel, and LNG spot prices—particularly in Asia and Europe—could return to levels not seen since 2022. For countries that rely heavily on imported natural gas, the consequences would be renewed inflation, worsening energy insecurity, and even the possibility of fuel rationing as winter approaches. Shipping and insurance markets would be thrown into disarray. Tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf would grind to a halt. Maritime insurers may suspend coverage for vessels transiting the Strait or demand prohibitively high war-risk premiums. Some shipping companies would avoid the region altogether, forcing longer routes and tighter global shipping capacity—raising costs not just for energy, but for commodities and consumer goods across the board. Strategic petroleum and gas reserves would likely be tapped as immediate substitutes. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and India—heavily dependent on Persian Gulf energy flows—would be among the first to draw from their stockpiles. But those reserves are limited, and a prolonged closure of the Strait would quickly strain their ability to buffer continued supply disruptions. Broader economic consequences would follow. As energy prices rise, so do input costs for key sectors like transportation, chemicals, and heavy manufacturing. Inflation would reaccelerate globally, putting renewed pressure on central banks and undermining recent progress in stabilizing prices. Some emerging economies, which lack the finances to subsidize rising energy costs, would be hit hardest, but developed economies would feel the squeeze too. Finally, a sustained disruption would accelerate the global energy realignment already underway. Policymakers would move quickly to diversify energy sources—fast-tracking LNG terminals, expanding storage capacity, and increasing imports from more stable suppliers like the U.S. It would also strengthen the case for more long-term investments in nuclear power and renewables, both of which offer insulation from the geopolitical volatility that continues to define fossil fuel markets. A Risky Game Closing the Strait would also damage Iran's own economy, which relies heavily on maritime exports. But history shows that governments under pressure don't always act rationally—especially when nationalism and survival are in play. Tehran may view the closure as a way to rally domestic support, push back against the West, or extract concessions in future negotiations. But it is a high-stakes move with no easy exit. The U.S. has made clear that such an act would be seen as hostile—and not just by Washington. Many of the world's major economies have a vested interest in keeping the Strait open, and a multinational response is more than likely. Bottom Line The world is watching closely. Energy companies are reviewing contingency plans, and governments are dusting off emergency protocols. Even in the absence of direct military escalation, the growing geopolitical risk is already being priced into oil and LNG futures. But it's worth noting that the Strait of Hormuz has never been fully closed in modern history—not even during periods of intense regional conflict. The closest call came during the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, particularly during the 'Tanker War,' when both countries targeted commercial shipping and laid mines throughout the Persian Gulf. Despite the violence, the Strait remained open—albeit under heavy military escort and with soaring insurance costs. Iran has issued similar threats before—most notably in 2011–2012 and again in 2019—in response to sanctions and military pressure. In each case, the threat alone was enough to shake global energy markets, even without an actual blockade. This time may be no different. But markets are rightly on edge, because the Strait of Hormuz isn't just a shipping lane—it's a pressure point for the entire global economy. And right now, that pressure is building.

5 minutes ago

US leaders warn Iran against retaliation after strikes on nuclear facilities

In the hours after its military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, U.S. officials suggested Iran ought to embrace a diplomatic off-ramp rather than choosing to retaliate. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace," President Donald Trump said late Saturday in an address to the nation, flanked by Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days," Trump said. U.S. officials on Sunday morning doubled down on the president's message, calling for a diplomatic process and threatening Iran with additional military action should it choose to retailiate for the U.S. attack. Vance suggested the U.S. was not interested in a broader war or a conflict beyond its strikes on the Iranian nuclear program. 'We're not at war with Iran; we're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' Vance said on ABC News' "This Week." At a Pentagon news conference, Hegseth said the nuclear program was 'the line the president set' and that the 'overwhelming' military action should invite peace. 'Iran, in that sense, has a choice,' Hegseth said. 'But we've made it very clear to them -- this is nuclear sites, this is nuclear capabilities. This is the line that the president set, and we set that back.' 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' he said. The defense secretary did not clarify any potential parameters for negotiations but said the U.S. was sending messages directly to Iran and 'giving them every opportunity to come to the table.' 'They understand precisely what the American position is, precisely what steps they can take to allow for peace, and we hope they do so,' he said. Hegseth said the scope of the U.S. attack -- which struck three nuclear sites including the uranium enrichment facility located deep underground in Fordo -- was 'intentionally limited" and not aimed at "regime change." Trump ordered that the offensive "is most certainly not open-ended,' Hegseth said, calling the attack 'a focused, powerful and clear mission on the destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities.' 'Those were the targets. That's what was struck. That was overwhelming,' the defense secretary said. Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon on Sunday that the U.S. was prepared for a potential response from Iran. Caine said 'any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks…would be an incredibly poor choice,' and Hegseth noted U.S. and allies' assets near Iran. The secretary said the strikes -- which included 14 massive ordnances flown by seven stealth bombers -- "devastated" their targets and left Tehran's nuclear ambitions "obliterated." Caine said a damage assessment was " way too early" to report, but said the operation had 'severely damaged' the targeted facilities. The president suggested Saturday that Iranian retaliation would amount to an escalation and would warrant U.S. attacks which would be 'far worse' than the strikes on nuclear sites. Instead, Trump, Vance, Rubio and Hegseth are signaling to Iran that it should return to the negotiating table to discuss Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. and Iran held five rounds of diplomatic talks -- with a sixth round scheduled -- before Israel attacked Iran last week and the U.S. joined with strikes of its own on Saturday. 'I think it is irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy because we were in the middle of diplomacy,' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday. 'We were in the middle of talks with the United States when [the] Israelis blew it up. And again, we were in the middle of talks and negotiation with Europeans, [which] happened only two days ago in Geneva, when this time Americans decided to blow it up,' he said,– referencing his hastily arranged meetings with European leaders on Friday. 'So we were in diplomacy. But we were attacked,' he added. Rubio, America's top diplomat, characterized those talks as delaying tactics by Tehran. 'They play too many games,' he said Sunday on Fox News. 'They use diplomacy to hide behind and obfuscate and think they can buy themselves time. They think they're cute, they're not cute, and they're not going to get away with this stuff, not under President Trump.' Rubio said repeatedly that regime change was not the objective of the attacks, but he suggested a renewed Iranian nuclear buildup would change Washington's calculus. 'If Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear-weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that,' he said.

USA Today

10 minutes ago

• USA Today

Trump vowed to keep US out of wars. What changed when he decided to bomb Iran?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long lobbied American presidents to help Israel bomb Iran. None have taken him up on it. Until now. President Donald Trump campaigned on stopping "endless wars." He also entered office vowing to bring a swift closure to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Five months in, he's joined Israel's war on Iran's nuclear facilities. So what's changed? And what were the warning signs Trump was prepared to become the third wheel in an Israel-Iran contest for regional dominance that's been playing out for decades? It's not clear what exact damage was done in Iran. The White House says U.S. bombers decimated three uranium enrichment facilities. What comes next is also far from certain: additional U.S. strikes, Iran's retaliation, a resumption of diplomacy, even? Is this the start of the collapse of Iran's clerical regime? Is it a historical moment akin to the breakup of the Soviet Union? What's indisputable is that one pull factor for the U.S. is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long, complicated relationship with recent American presidents. The U.S. bombing of Iran is also the culmination of a process that traces at least as far back to the 1990s when Netanyahu, then a young lawmaker, predicted the Islamic Republic, Israel's sworn enemy, would one day either acquire, or be on the cusp of acquiring, a nuclear weapon and Israel would be forced to act − ideally with U.S. help. "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb," Netanyahu said in 1992. His prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, "Fighting Terrorism." Netanyahu's constant refrain: bomb Iran Netanyahu is the longest-serving Israeli prime minister in the Jewish state's history. He's occupied the role on and off for more than 17 years. In every one of those years he's sought to convince American presidents to bomb Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy purposes only. Netanyahu has appeared at the United Nations with elaborate maps and cartoon-style drawings of bombs. He worked hard to scupper the 2015 nuclear accord between Iran and world powers that Trump exited because he said Iranian officials could not be trusted. In 2002, Netanyahu told a U.S. congressional committee that both Iraq and Iran would soon have a nuclear bomb. A year later the U.S. invaded Iraq. In 2009, he told members of Congress in private that Iran was just a year or two away from producing a nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks. Successive American presidents have listened and acted on Netanyahu's Iran warnings, most substantively politically in the form of the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, which was designed to limit Iran's uranium enrichment in return for relief of U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. When Trump, in his first term, exited that agreement it was working in the sense that Iran was not enriching uranium at a level necessary to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Netanyahu's public and private relationships with recent American presidents have been marked by chilly tensions and insults. In 2015, Netanyahu's spokesman apologized to former President Barack Obama. He has also clashed with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. Netanyahu has even annoyed Trump, although their relationship trends toward mutual lavish praise. But no American president − until now − has gone along with Netanyahu's war plans for Iran, fearing the U.S. could be dragged into a wider Middle East war. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan still haunt U.S. presidents. "The president more than anybody is worried about protracted military conflicts and that is not what we are getting ourselves involved in,' U.S. Vice President JD Vance said on ABC's "This Week" program on June 22. Vance said the Trump administration is also not trying to force regime change in Iran. Reading Trump's Iran tea leaves Trump may also not be as risk averse to military actions as is sometimes portrayed, including by himself. In his first term, he ordered a missile attack in Syria to punish then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons; a raid to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; and a drone attack that killed Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander much beloved in Iran whose death led to Iranian reprisals on U.S. bases in Iraq. Also in the background: The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, and former U.S. officials such as Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, say Iran's nuclear capabilities have advanced since Trump exited the nuclear deal. "Iran cannot be left with an enrichment capability, able to produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing," Shapiro wrote in a recent blog post. Trump has made various comments for years that reflect that sentiment. The main thrust of his remarks in recent weeks have been to say he won't allow Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program, and Tehran could give it up through negotiation or through what he called "the hard way." After first pushing for a diplomatic solution, Trump's tone changed after Israel on June 13 struck dozens of nuclear and military targets in Iran, killing many of Iran's military elite and senior nuclear scientists. By June 17, the president was threatening Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on social media, calling him an "easy target." See updated maps, satellite images: Iran's nuclear sites before and after Israeli attacks Trump likes a winner. He often says so himself. In the days leading up to the U.S. strike, Israel appeared to be winning. "Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,' Netanyahu said in a statement as he addressed the world on June 22 to update them on the war's latest development. He spoke in English, not Hebrew. In his own address, to the American people, Trump said, "I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel." Not mentioned: U.S. intelligence agencies assessed earlier this year that they did not think Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb. Contributing: Francesca Chambers, Tom Vanden Brook