Trump shows off support for what he calls ‘a display of peace through strength’

Most Republicans rushed to rally around President Donald Trump as soon as news broke that the United States had attacked Iran. While most of them likely learned about the strikes the same as the rest of the world, once they were over, 135 congressmembers and senators rushed to show their support on social media. The White House compiled all the messages in a statement released Sunday under the heading What They’re Saying: President Trump’s Demonstration of Peace Through Strength. But as is often the case, the important thing at this point may lie precisely in what the Republicans who remain silent aren’t saying.

The messages of support published by senators and House members are similar. They wholeheartedly endorse the president’s decision and invoke the supposed “urgency” of the attack to act without first consulting Congress. “The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do. Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,” wrote U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Many other messages of support emphasized the idea of Washington’s incursion into the Middle East war as an act of peace, even though Tehran has announced it will respond to the attack. “By leading with peace through strength, President Trump is making the world a safer place and protecting Americans. Iran must never be able to threaten America with a nuclear weapon,” wrote Senator Joni Ernst. “May this be the end of Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions and lay the groundwork for lasting peace,” added Senator Bill Hagerty.

Unlimited power outside the Constitution

The criticism heard since Sunday has come primarily from the Democrats, who see the unilateral attack, without Congressional approval, as another step by the Republicans toward unlimited power outside the framework of the Constitution. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer asserted that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy.”

Even a few Republicans, a minority, have dared to speak out. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie was blunt on social media: “This is not constitutional.” His colleague, Marjorie Taylor Greene, asserted: “This is not our fight.” On the other side, at least one Democratic representative, Senator John Fetterman, defended the president: “As I have long maintained, this was the correct move.”

The scrupulous effort by White House officials to gather support has not prevented the silence from being heard. Intervention in Iran could divide the Republican Party, which Trump had managed to unite around himself in recent years, alienating dissenting voices as well as the MAGA movement.

Former Fox News star host Tucker Carlson and one of Trump’s key ideologues, Steve Bannon, had already expressed their rejection in recent days. And theirs is not a pacifist view, but rather one guided by the nationalist utilitarianism championed by MAGA: What does the United States get out of all this? According to them, the national benefits in no way outweigh the economic costs required by such a military intervention abroad, which, moreover, was never part of the Republican’s plans or campaign promises.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition