US President Donald Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which he foreshadowed on and off for the past few days, has revealed a surprisingly broad middle ground in US politics, even as it has provoked controversy in the international community.

Almost immediately after news of the US military action broke, John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, blasted out a statement of support, calling the attack the “correct move”.

Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who spent decades in House Democratic Leadership roles, said the strike “was essential to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon”.

Governor of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro, a likely presidential candidate in 2028, gave a thoughtful evaluation^[1] of the attack, calling Iran’s nuclear weapons program “dangerous”.

Other Democrats were more muted. Leading Senators, including Leader Chuck Schumer, complained about the lack of congressional authorisation and the administration’s failure to consult Congress before the strike, but didn’t specifically oppose the US action.

In the US system, only Congress can declare war, but the president has broad power as commander-in-chief to respond to threats. Most defenders of presidential authority acknowledge his authority to act militarily – particularly when the US’s role is highly limited, such as in the Iran strike. Should US involvement deepen, the calls for a congressional role in authorising the war will become louder and more legitimate.

Some on the far left, including Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, openly opposed the strike and even called for Trump’s impeachment. Ocasio-Cortez said:

The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.

On the Republican side, there has also not been unanimous support for the strike.

Even within the president’s coalition, some isolationists have been opposed to any US strike on Iran. They rightly pointed out that Trump campaigned on ending wars, not starting them.

Media personalities Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon openly urged the president not to strike Iran. Carlson’s interview on the issue with hawkish Republican Ted Cruz gathered huge attention on social media.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence and a member of his cabinet, went so far as to make a video about the horrors of nuclear conflict.

Trump’s reaction to Gabbard’s video was furious. He even suggested he might eliminate her office^[2], which is charged with coordinating America’s many intelligence agencies.

Trump also called Carlson^[3], whose millions-strong following on X is a key component of Trump’s political base, “kooky” for opposing a strike on Iran. Trump later walked that back, saying Carlson had called to apologise, and that Carlson “is a nice guy”.

In Congress, one notable Trump ally opposed the Iran attack. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the controversial congresswoman from Georgia, said:

Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war […] This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.

Trump’s decision has wide cross-party support

It is certainly fair to look closely at Trump’s base and explore divisions and disagreements. However, it is highly likely that Trump’s dominant personality means he will keep the vast majority of his base together.

More revealing about US politics is the support across the aisle for his Iran policy.

Trump’s brash manner and divisive rhetoric make it difficult for Democrats to support him in any circumstance, but the US people’s disdain for Iran appears to be much stronger.

In 1979, Iranian revolutionaries took 52 US diplomats hostage. The image of those captive hostages blindfolded and at the mercy of Iranian radicals is burned into older Americans’ brains.

A generation later, Iran-backed militias killed more than 600 Americans^[4] in the war in Iraq. There are other sins Iran has committed against the US, included the attempted assassination^[5] of Trump. In this context, Trump’s policy is in the US mainstream.

Why didn’t Trump consult Congress?

It has been the standard practice of US presidents to brief the bipartisan leadership of Congress on key national security initiatives, such as a strikes on adversaries. While not a hard-and-fast rule, the practice can produce more bipartisan support for a president’s actions that he might otherwise have. It’s not unreasonable to think senior congressional Democrats might be more openly supportive of the Iran strike if they had been consulted in this manner.

However, Trump and his administration did not do this, for a reason. There is little value in open bipartisanship in America today. Even though both parties are very close on Iran policy, neither wants that to be seen in public as cooperating across the aisle. Each party would much rather make the case to its base that it represents their interests and is not willing to compromise with the other party. Support from Democrats does not strengthen Trump, as his base is highly suspicious of the opposition party.

The reverse is true for elected Democrats, including those in leadership. They will be more vulnerable from progressives in next year’s primary contests if they are seen as insufficiently resisting Trump. There is no Trump-like figure in their party to protect them from this base.

In US politics today, nothing is more dangerous than agreeing with the other party. There is a premium value on publicly opposing your political adversaries, no matter what the issue. It makes for a foreign policy that appears more fractured than it actually is.

References

1. ^{^} gave a thoughtful evaluation (x.com)
2. ^{^} eliminate her office (www.msn.com)
3. ^{^} Trump also called Carlson (www.msn.com)
4. ^{^} Iran-backed militias killed more than 600 Americans (www.militarytimes.com)
5. ^{^} attempted assassination (www.msn.com)