Following a classified briefing on President Donald Trump’s airstrikes targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities, US Senators exhibited markedly different views. Republican senators hailed the operation as a significant triumph, while their Democratic counterparts voiced considerable skepticism.
During the briefing, attended by key officials including CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, many Republicans expressed satisfaction, albeit with varying opinions on the actual impact on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Senator Tom Cotton labelled the strikes a “major blow,” asserting that they inflicted “catastrophic damage” on Iran’s facilities. Senator Lindsey Graham echoed this sentiment, claiming the operational capacity of the sites had been “obliterated”.
Contrastingly, Democrats were less convinced and critiqued Trump for inadequately informing Congress about the military action. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer indicated that the briefing raised “more questions than it answered,” while Senator Chris Murphy posited that the attack might have merely delayed Iran’s nuclear programme by a few months. Murphy contested the notion that the programme had been “obliterated,” arguing, “the allegations just don’t seem to hold up.”
As the senators deliberated on a resolution calling for Congressional authorisation before any further military actions against Iran, the vote was anticipated soon. Some, including Murphy, raised concerns over Trump having bypassed Congress, insisting that more context on the intelligence used to justify the strikes was necessary.
A preliminary intelligence report reportedly indicated that the strikes only marginally set back Iran’s nuclear efforts, contradicting more assertive claims made by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nonetheless, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth maintained the view that the attack was historically significant, asserting success in dismantling Iran’s nuclear assets.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe subsequently bolstered Trump’s narrative, claiming that new intelligence corroborated the extensive damage to Iran’s facilities. Gabbard stated that rebuilding efforts would likely span years, while Ratcliffe supported the viewpoint that the programme had suffered severe setbacks.
While many Republicans defended Trump’s actions and the de-escalation he facilitated in the Israel-Iran conflict, a faction also expressed discomfort regarding the potential for prolonged US military engagement. Senator Rand Paul suggested pressing the Speaker of the House on constitutional grounds concerning unilateral military actions by the President.
Despite Trump’s failure to seek formal approval for the strikes, he briefly notified Congressional leaders in writing, contending that the actions were essential to safeguarding US national interests and protecting Israel. As the legislative environment remained charged, anticipation built around potential bipartisan support for the resolution demanding Congressional oversight for future military interventions involving Iran.