In an unusual moment of bipartisan unity, President Donald Trump on Saturday received public praise from prominent lawmakers across both parties for authorizing a bold and sweeping military operation against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The strikes, targeting three of Iran’s most fortified and critical nuclear facilities—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—were described by the president as a “spectacular military success.”
But beyond the battlefield implications, the air campaign is now reshaping Washington’s political landscape as voices from both sides acknowledge Trump’s leadership in averting what many believe was an imminent nuclear threat.
The reaction from Republicans was swift and jubilant. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, long a hawkish voice on Iran, celebrated the strikes in a brief but emphatic message on X (formerly Twitter), writing, “Good. This was the right call. The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump.”
His comment was echoed across conservative ranks as GOP lawmakers lined up to affirm the president’s actions as not just justified, but essential.
Representative Brandon Gill of Texas framed the operation through the lens of strategic deterrence. “’Peace through strength’ means ensuring our existential enemies don’t acquire the most lethal and catastrophic weapons known to man,” he declared. Meanwhile, Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, who chairs the powerful House Armed Services Committee, released a formal statement emphasizing the necessity of the strikes.
“Iran made the choice to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and would only be stopped by force,” Rogers wrote. “It would be a grave mistake to retaliate against our forces.”
But perhaps the most consequential response came from across the aisle, with Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania delivering unambiguous support for Trump’s decision. “As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,” Fetterman posted. “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I’m grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.”
Fetterman’s statement, coming from a prominent progressive Democrat, sent shockwaves through the Capitol as it highlighted the gravity of the threat and the seriousness with which the strike was viewed—even among those typically critical of Trump’s foreign policy.
Former Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, also took to social media to frame the strike in broader terms. “President Trump basically wants this to be like the Soleimani strike—one and done. No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!” Gaetz wrote, referencing the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, another pivotal moment of Trump-era military policy.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a leading voice on national security, offered a historical perspective: “Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. 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.” Cotton’s reference to the long arc of hostilities underscored the view among many Republicans that the time for negotiations and diplomatic gestures had long since passed.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican and staunch Trump ally, lauded the operation’s clarity and decisiveness. “President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated,” he stated. “That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity.”
Johnson pointed out that Iran had been given “every opportunity to make a deal” but refused to commit to denuclearization. The result, in his view, was a necessary demonstration of American resolve. “Military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.”
Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming added, “The greatest threat to the safety of the United States and the world is Iran with a nuclear weapon. God bless our troops.” Such comments reinforced the narrative that Trump's decision was rooted in national defense, rather than political optics or escalation for its own sake.
Despite the groundswell of bipartisan praise, not all reactions were supportive. Some lawmakers expressed deep concern over the constitutional implications of the strike. Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky known for his libertarian-leaning views, sharply criticized the move.
“These attacks were not constitutional,” Massie stated, referring to the lack of prior congressional authorization for the military action. Massie has long advocated for adherence to the War Powers Resolution and has pushed to curtail the executive branch’s ability to engage in hostilities without legislative approval.
Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, echoed Massie’s concern and called for an emergency legislative response. “Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress,” Khanna wrote. “We need to immediately return to DC and vote on @RepThomasMassie and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.”
The two lawmakers, though from opposite parties, have previously collaborated on limiting military engagement abroad, particularly in the wake of the prolonged U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even so, the criticism was a minority position. In the face of what was widely viewed as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear aspirations, most lawmakers seemed to rally behind the commander-in-chief. Political analysts note that the rare moment of cross-party agreement may reflect a broader consensus in Washington: that a nuclear-armed Iran represents a red line not only for Republican administrations but for the entire American political establishment.
Indeed, Iran’s aggressive posture—its open support of militant proxies across the Middle East, its history of targeting American troops with IEDs and missiles, and its ongoing refusal to comply with international nuclear oversight—has united many otherwise divided lawmakers. For years, both Republican and Democratic administrations have struggled with how to deter Iran without triggering a regional war.
Trump’s gamble, using targeted force instead of prolonged engagement, appears for now to have recalibrated that strategy.
Still, international observers are watching closely. Iran’s next move will be critical. The extent of damage to its nuclear facilities is still being independently assessed, though the Pentagon insists the operation neutralized key elements of the regime’s enrichment capability. Tehran has yet to issue a full response, but initial reports indicate heightened military readiness and anti-air defense deployments across major cities.
Meanwhile, the White House has remained tight-lipped about future plans, though Trump’s speech Saturday night hinted at a conditional pause in escalation. “Hopefully, we will no longer need our military in this capacity,” Trump stated, before warning that future attacks “will be far greater and a lot easier” if Iran does not comply.
The implications for global diplomacy, defense policy, and electoral politics in the U.S. are vast. With many in Congress now vocally backing the president—even those who have been historically hostile to him—Trump appears to have reshaped the narrative on Iran, even if just momentarily. Whether that unity will endure, and whether Iran will respond with restraint or retaliation, remains to be seen.
But for now, Trump has done what few expected: unite a fractured Congress around a high-stakes foreign policy decision—and remind the world that when it comes to national security, the American presidency still carries thunder.
