Saturday, November 8, 2025
Though it could be weeks and months before there can be an accurate determination of the full extent of the impact of the United States’ bombing attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, I strongly support President Trump’s decision to order those attacks.
While I certainly understand and appreciate that good Americans have honest differences with the president’s decision, I have no patience with the almost instantaneous knee-jerk opposition to the attacks from Democrats and many in the media, followed by the attempts to diminish the impact of the strikes based on preliminary findings of a leaked government report that had a low level of confidence. It was almost as if these political and media elements were rooting against the United States in our struggle against Iranian state terrorism.
There has to be a return to more bipartisan support for foreign policy that would at least give the commander in chief an early benefit of the doubt when decisions are made. I say this as an American rather than as a Republican.
During the years I was in Congress, I saw both major political parties rush to partisan judgments against presidential foreign policy actions. In the early 1990s, for instance, war raged in the Balkans following the dismemberment of Yugoslavia resulting from the collapse of the Iron Curtain, with Serbia being the aggressor in Bosnia and also against neighboring Kosovo. While this had no direct impact on the United States, it was the first war in Europe since the end of World War II, and it threatened to spread, and unravel the fragile stability of other former Soviet bloc nations. I remember, as a member of the International Relations Committee, hearing one European diplomat after another tell us that military action against Serbia would only lead to a massive land war that could last for years.
Finally, President Bill Clinton decided he’d had enough, and ordered air strikes against the Serbian forces. Republicans in Congress railed against him. I was one of only a handful of Republicans who stood with the president. The war that was supposed to last for years ended in just over a week, leading to an agreement that has lasted all these years since. This scenario repeated itself in Kosovo less than four years later, when American air power defeated Serb aggression in less than a month and secured a still-lasting independence for Kosovo, despite strong Republican opposition.
These victories over aggression brought stability not only to the lives of people in Bosnia and Kosovo, but also to the continent of Europe in the post-Soviet world. This has become particularly important in the face of resurgent Russian aggression and expansion.
Congressional Democrats demonstrated their own stubborn partisanship and hypocrisy when President Barack Obama ordered air strikes against Libya and its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, which led to regime change, and then authorized deadly drone missile attacks in Yemen that killed many al Qaeda terrorists, including American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Democrats now railing against Trump for allegedly violating the Constitution and not seeking prior congressional approval were uniformly silent in the face of these similar actions by Obama, which I supported.
My main point is not that all presidential foreign policy decisions are correct, but that they shouldn’t be met with blind partisanship. Today’s world often requires quick decisions to forestall terrorist attacks or, in the case of Iran, not give the mullahs the advance notice of our intention to attack, which would necessarily result from a public debate. Even behind-the-scenes consultation with Democrats could well have led to damaging leaks and disclosure.
Iran is the world’s leading supporter of state terrorism, and was within reach of creating nuclear weapons. While there could be debate as to how close that date was, it was reasonable for Trump to resolve the doubts in favor of potentially striking too soon rather than too late. Whether or not the attacks resulted in the destruction of all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, there can be no doubt that its nuclear program has been at least significantly delayed and weakened.
This strong action was good for the region and the world. It also sent a strong message of deterrence to China against attacking Taiwan, and undid much of the damage caused by our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
These are dangerous times that call for intelligent thought and debate, not partisan buzzwords more suited to campaign fundraising. Let that debate begin.
