Fetterman Backs Trump’s Iran Strike as Congress Debates War Powers and Retaliation Risks

In a rare break from the Democratic Party line, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman has voiced support for President Donald Trump’s recent decision to launch precision military strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The move, which reportedly crippled three key nuclear enrichment facilities, has triggered both praise and controversy across the political spectrum.

Fetterman took to social media shortly after the strikes to express his approval.

“I’ve consistently said this was the right call by @POTUS,” Fetterman posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Iran remains the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. It cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. I commend our military for carrying out this operation with such skill and resolve.”

Fetterman’s stance puts him at odds with many within his own party, but also aligns him with a growing group of national security-minded Democrats who view Iran as a credible and escalating threat, particularly to Israel and broader U.S. interests in the region.

The U.S. strikes, carried out late Saturday, came after weeks of rising tensions between Washington and Tehran, fueled in part by Iran’s deepening military cooperation with its regional proxy networks and its refusal to halt uranium enrichment beyond levels agreed upon in the now-defunct nuclear deal.

While Trump’s supporters praised the move as a bold demonstration of strength, critics in both parties questioned whether the administration had overstepped its constitutional authority.

“Most Republicans are inclined to defer to President Trump’s judgment when it comes to military decisions,” a Fox News analysis noted, “even when those actions involve direct strikes on sovereign territory without prior Congressional approval.”

However, concerns over executive overreach and the potential for broader military escalation have sparked renewed interest in the debate over war powers.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), often ideological opposites, introduced a joint resolution calling for a halt to U.S. military involvement in Iran. The measure seeks to reinforce the authority of Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants lawmakers the sole power to declare war.

Meanwhile, Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a long-time advocate for war powers reform, announced plans to bring the issue to a vote later in the week, emphasizing the need for transparency and legislative oversight in future military decisions.

“This isn’t about whether or not Iran is dangerous—it is,” Kaine said in a Sunday interview. “This is about process, accountability, and ensuring that our brave service members are not sent into harm’s way without proper debate or legal grounding.”

The Trump administration has defended its decision as both justified and strategically necessary. In a televised address from the White House, Trump stated, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions are no longer a distant concern. Tonight, we acted decisively to eliminate that threat. The facilities were targeted, and they are no longer a factor.”

CIA Director John Ratcliffe is expected to brief the full Senate on Tuesday regarding the intelligence that informed the strikes and the administration’s assessment of potential retaliatory actions.

National security officials are reportedly monitoring potential threats from Iranian-backed militias, sleeper cells, and cyber operations, both overseas and on U.S. soil. Experts warn that Iran’s capacity to retaliate remains significant, even if its nuclear progress has been delayed.

Retired Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt offered a blunt analysis of the military operation during an appearance on CNN.

“I was impressed,” Kimmitt told Anderson Cooper. “The use of deception leading up to the strikes—delaying for nearly two weeks, engaging in what appeared to be negotiations, then executing a decisive blow—was classic Trump strategy. You don’t negotiate from weakness.”

Kimmitt added that while the operation likely spared American lives through its precision and timing, it would be naïve to assume Iran will remain passive in response.

“They may be down, but they’re not out,” he warned. “Their proxy networks in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon still pose real threats. American personnel and infrastructure in the region are vulnerable.”

The Pentagon has not released details on future military plans, but defense officials have indicated that increased security measures are being implemented at key sites in the Middle East.

As the fallout from the operation continues, one thing is clear: President Trump’s strike on Iran has reignited both international tensions and a domestic constitutional debate over who holds the reins in matters of war and peace.

Whether the U.S. will be drawn deeper into conflict—or manage to deter further escalation—remains to be seen.