Your Questions on the Iran Bombing, Answered.

Everything you need to know.

Good morning, everyone! I’m back in the saddle after some time away. I didn’t miss much, did I? In this morning’s newsletter, we’ll cover the U.S. bombing of Iran, what the response has been like, and what will happen next in the Middle East and Washington.

---

What happened on Saturday night?

The United States bombed Iran for the first time in its history, adding to an ongoing series of attacks Israel had been carrying out for the past week. The U.S. targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities, using B-2 stealth bomber planes to drop 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs on the Fordo and Natanz facilities and a submarine to fire Tomahawk missiles at the Natanz and Isfahan sites.

The mission was codenamed “Operation Midnight Hammer.”

Was the attack successful?

President Trump says it was. “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” he boasted on Saturday, adding last night on Truth Social that “Monumental Damage” was done to all three nuclear sites. “The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame,” he wrote. “The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”

Here are satellite images from the Washington Post showing the damage at Fordo, Iran’s top nuclear enrichment facility, which is buried deep under a mountain:

When assessing legal claims by the Trump administration, it can often be beneficial to listen to what Justice Department lawyers are saying in court filings, as opposed to the more aggressive (and sometimes exaggerated) rhetoric by the president and his advisers. Similarly, here, it is helpful to listen to the more careful language of Defense Department officials.

Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, said at a Sunday press conference that the three sites sustained “extremely severe damage,” but stopped short of saying they had been fully destroyed (or “completely and totally obliterated,” as Trump put it). It would take time, Caine added, to assess whether Iran still possessed nuclear capabilities.

According to the New York Times, the initial analyses of the U.S. and Israeli militaries is that the Fordo site was damaged but not entirely destroyed, although neither country has made any final conclusions.

One key question that remains is whether Iran moved its stockpile of uranium from the targeted sites before the attacks, which would allow the country to continue its nuclear program elsewhere.

But hadn’t Trump set a two-week deadline on deciding to strike Iran?

That appears to have been misdirection, according to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and other news outlets. “It was a headfake,” one Trump adviser told Axios.

According to these reports, even when Trump said last Thursday that he would make his decision “within the next two weeks,” his mind was largely already made up and plans were forming to carry out the strikes.

What happens now?

President Trump and his allies have framed the U.S. strike as an isolated event that won’t lead to a larger conflict. “This is not the start of a forever war,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jim Risch (R-ID) wrote, describing the attack as a “precise, limited strike.”

But whether that proves to be the case won’t be decided only by the Trump administration. As always, the enemy also gets a vote.

Iran has yet to retaliate against the U.S., although it has pledged to do so. One of the most immediate concerns is that Iran (or its proxy militia groups) could attack any of the 40,000 U.S. troops stationed across the Middle East. According to the New York Times, American officials have detected signs that Iran-backed militias are preparing to attack U.S. bases in Iraq and possibly Syria, although Iraqi officials are reportedly “working hard” to dissuade the groups from taking such action.

The Iranian parliament has also taken moves to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would have an enormous economic impact: about 20 million barrels of oil, accounting for one-fifth of daily global production, flow through the straight each day.

Per NBC, Iran has privately threatened to respond by “unleashing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil carried out by sleeper cells operating inside the country.” The White House has said it is monitoring that possibility.

The scope of Iran’s retaliation will likely dictate the scope of the U.S.’ own response, which will help determine whether a broader conflict is in the offing. Vice President JD Vance said Sunday morning that “we don’t want a regime change,” but his boss seemed to be singing a different tune just hours later. “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” Trump posted later Sunday.

In his Saturday night speech, the president said that if Iran did not respond to the bombing by returning to the negotiating table, further attacks would be in store. “There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” he said.

In the meantime, Israel has continued its bombing campaign against Iran, including targeting Iran’s top prison for housing political detainees, an apparent attempt to free political prisoners and potentially further destabilize the ruling Iranian regime. Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Iran’s supreme leader, is reportedly sheltering in a bunker with a list of possible successors already picked out.

Wait, does Congress play any role in this?

According to Article I of the Constitution, Congress is the branch of government with the power “to declare War,” but presidents of both parties been looking past that tiny detail to unilaterally take military action for decades. A partial list from the New York Times:

President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Presidents often cite their own competing power under Article II, which establishes that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” as authorization to use force when they deem necessary.

Congress does have something of a backstop to prevent Trump from taking additional unilateral action against Iran, although it would require much larger bipartisan opposition to his bombing than currently exists. Under the War Power Resolution of 1973, “at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”

Individual senators and representatives are able to force votes on resolutions under that provision; Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) has authored a proposal that would prevent Trump from taking unauthorized action against Iran (except to defend the U.S. from an “imminent attack”), which could receive a Senate vote as early as this week. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has endorsed the resolution.

A companion resolution in the House has been introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY).

But here’s the catch: even if the Massie/Kaine proposals were to pass in both the House and Senate (which does not currently seem likely), concurrent resolutions are subject to a presidential veto, which means the measure would need two-thirds support to overcome Trump’s inevitable veto. The resolution is very unlikely to reach that high bar of support.

How has the public responded to the bombing?

Before the attack, a deep split had emerged within the MAGA coalition over U.S. involvement in the Israel/Iran conflict, with figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson appealing to Trump’s promise of being an anti-war president in urging him to refrain from jumping in.

After Trump opted against taking their advice, some figures within the party have criticized the move — including Reps. Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) — but the GOP has largely fallen in line behind Trump.

A YouGov poll last week found that just 23% of Republicans supported U.S. involvement in the conflict, compared to 53% who were opposed. But a follow-up survey after the bombing found that 68% of Republicans supported Trump’s decision, while only 13% expressed opposition.

Meanwhile, 70% of Democrats said they were opposed to the bombing, while 16% were in support.

Overall, including Independents as well, 35% of U.S. adults said they approved of the attack, 46% said they disapproved, and 19% weren’t sure.

---

What else I’m watching

• A new poll shows democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani narrowly beating former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in Tuesday’s New York City mayoral primary.

• Kamala Harris is “leaning toward entering the California gubernatorial race,” per The Hill.

• A Tennessee judge ruled that Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be released from jail as he awaits trial, although ICE is expected to detain him if the Justice Department lets him go.

• Senate Majority Leader John Thune says that the Senate will remain in session until it passes President Trump’s “one big beautiful bill.” The chamber’s rules referee has been stripping out parts of the package for violating the rules of the reconciliation process, including a provision that would have made it harder to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court.

• President Trump will meet with his national security team … The Senate will hold a procedural vote on a Defense Department nominee … The House will vote on up to 20 pieces of legislation.