Hold onto your hats, folks — MSNBC’s resident Trump critic Joe Scarborough just threw a curveball by backing the president’s bold strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Over the weekend, President Donald Trump ordered bombings on key Iranian uranium enrichment sites, and Scarborough, usually a thorn in the administration’s side, defended the move on Monday as a necessary action any leader might have taken, as the Daily Mail reports.
Weeks prior, Trump had signaled patience, promising to hold off on decisions regarding Iran for a couple of weeks. But diplomacy hit a brick wall when talks in Istanbul, brokered with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, collapsed after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly fled to an undisclosed location and couldn’t be reached. Turns out, waiting isn’t always an option when the stakes are this high.
Trump’s historic strike takes shape
By the weekend, Trump shifted gears, authorizing a military operation targeting Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. These fortified sites, central to Iran’s uranium enrichment program, were hit with bunker buster bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles.
On Sunday, Trump took to Truth Social, hailing the operation as a “historic” and “spectacular military success.” It’s a rare moment when bravado meets action, and for once, not everyone on the left is screaming foul.
Enter Scarborough, who on Monday stunned viewers by standing up for Trump’s decision. He argued that the president had little choice, given the circumstances. It’s not every day you see a critic switch teams, even temporarily.
Scarborough: Any president would have done it
Scarborough didn’t stop there, claiming, “I find it hard to believe” past leaders like both Bushes or the Clintons wouldn’t have felt forced to act similarly. That’s a hefty statement from someone who rarely gives Trump an inch. Perhaps reality trumps ideology when the chips are down.
He even posed a pointed question to panelist David Ignatius: “What would Monday look like if he hadn’t moved?” It’s a fair point — inaction could have painted a far uglier picture. Sometimes, the hardest calls are the only ones left on the table.
Scarborough, quoting Henry Kissinger, reminded us that foreign policy decisions in the White House often come down to choosing between two tough paths. Panelist Katty Kay echoed this, noting, “Yeah, the diplomatic route ran out.” When talk fails, steel often speaks.
Inherited plans, stymied diplomacy
Scarborough and Ignatius also pointed out that Trump didn’t craft this operation from scratch — it was a “battle plan” inherited from prior administrations for when diplomacy collapsed. It’s a sobering reminder that some problems outlast presidencies. This wasn’t a rogue move; it was a contingency long in the making.
Before the strikes, there was a flicker of hope for de-escalation with the attempted Istanbul meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials. But with Khamenei out of reach, per ABC News sources, that door slammed shut. Actions, as they say, speak louder than unreachable leaders.
Iran, predictably, isn’t taking this lying down, vowing a response and accusing the U.S. of entering the conflict “clearly and directly” by hitting their nuclear sites. The chessboard just got messier, and we’re all waiting for the next move.
Critics cry foul
Not everyone’s cheering, of course — critics like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie have slammed the strikes as unconstitutional for lacking congressional approval. It’s a bipartisan grumble, which is rarer than a unicorn these days.
Illinois Democrat Rep. Sean Casten went further, calling it “an unambiguous impeachable offense” and arguing, “No president has the authority to bomb another country” without Congress’s nod if there’s no imminent threat. That’s a sharp accusation, but sidestepping legislative oversight is a gamble that’s sparked debates for decades.
While the progressive crowd and some constitutional purists clutch their pearls, it’s worth asking: when national security hangs in the balance, does process trump urgency? Scarborough’s unexpected defense suggests even critics can see the gray in a black-and-white world. For now, Trump’s strike stands as a lightning rod — brilliant to some, reckless to others, but undeniably a game-changer.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Mae Slater
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.conservativejournalreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
