President Donald Trump’s recent strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has accomplished what multiple administrations failed to do: it stopped Iran’s nuclear ambitions in their tracks. For now, the country’s decades-long effort to acquire a nuclear weapon lies in ruins, the program reduced to rubble. Whether or not it resurfaces down the line, the present reality is clear—Trump acted decisively, and the result was immediate.
The precision and force of the U.S. strike, followed by a potential ceasefire between Iran and Israel, has drawn reactions not only from expected Republican voices but also from figures on the political left who are acknowledging the effectiveness of Trump’s approach.
Perhaps the most surprising comes from Jamie Metzl, a former National Security Council official under President Bill Clinton and a former deputy to Joe Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I served on the National Security Council under President Clinton. I was Joe Biden’s Deputy Staff Director of the Senate foreign Relations Committee. I voted for Kamala Harris and have been a vocal critic of many dangerous and undemocratic actions taken by President Trump.
But…
— Jamie Metzl (@JamieMetzl) June 22, 2025
Metzl, while reiterating his support for Vice President Kamala Harris, admitted in a statement posted to X that she would not have had “the courage or fortitude” to authorize such a strike.
He went on to acknowledge the reality that Iran has been in conflict with the United States for nearly half a century, calling out the regime’s long history of violence and its unwavering chant of “Death to America” as more than mere rhetoric—it’s ideological fact.
It is a rare moment in American politics when a career Democrat breaks ranks to praise a Republican president on national security grounds. Metzl’s statement reflects not only the gravity of the threat posed by Iran but also the seriousness with which Trump’s decision is being taken—even among his critics.
According to Metzl, the president’s action served America’s core national interests and was grounded in a firm grasp of the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iranian regime.
While Metzl still cloaks his assessment in partisan hedging, the essence of his statement is unmistakable. He acknowledged that had Harris been in the Oval Office, Iran’s nuclear sites might still be fully operational today. That’s a sobering observation—not just from a policy perspective, but from the standpoint of leadership.