Jamie Metzl, a former Clinton National Security Council official and Biden’s Deputy Staff Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has expressed his approval of President Trump’s decisive action against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Despite being a vocal critic of Trump and a Harris voter, Metzl acknowledged that Kamala Harris would not have possessed the “courage or fortitude” to take such critical steps. Why has Trump’s foreign policy approach garnered support from Democrats?
Democratic Acknowledgment of Trump’s Iran Strategy
Jamie Metzl, who served on the National Security Council under President Clinton and as Biden’s Deputy Staff Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has made a remarkable admission regarding President Trump’s actions against Iran. Despite being a self-described “vocal critic of many dangerous and undemocratic actions taken by President Trump,” Metzl conceded that former Vice President Harris “would not have had the courage or fortitude to take such an essential step as the president took” in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
The statement represents a significant acknowledgment from a Democratic figure about the effectiveness of Trump’s decisive approach to addressing the Iranian nuclear threat. Metzl expressed being “perfectly comfortable” with the action, suggesting that a Democrat administration would likely have pursued negotiations rather than taking definitive military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
"I believe Kamala Harris … would’ve had a very hard time taking such a bold and decisive decision": @JamieMetzl — who voted for Harris — praises President Trump’s firm action on Iran strikes pic.twitter.com/3dKkoeYp42
— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) June 24, 2025
National Security Council Structure and Effectiveness
President Trump’s decision to downsize the National Security Council staff has drawn criticism from media outlets and former NSC staffers under Biden. Critics argue that reducing the NSC staff could impair the government’s ability to handle international crises effectively, with some claiming Trump is “removing part of his government’s brain.”
Historical evidence suggests that the effectiveness of the NSC depends more on its mission clarity and the cohesion among agency heads rather than its size. President George H.W. Bush achieved significant foreign policy successes with a relatively small NSC staff, guided by the capable leadership of National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.
The NSC reached its peak size under President Obama with approximately 400 members, while both Biden and President Trump have implemented reductions. Experts suggest that a smaller NSC staff cannot suppress agency heads’ views, which ensures that diverse policy options are presented to the president for consideration.
"They're going to do everything in their power to quietly build up Iran": @JamieMetzl warns China and Russia may be working behind the scenes to support Tehran pic.twitter.com/62iDbjgXtr
— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) June 24, 2025
Implications for Regional Stability
The decisive action against Iran’s nuclear facilities demonstrates the Trump administration’s commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation by rogue states. This approach has transformed Iran into a shadow of its former influence in the region, potentially altering the power dynamics in the Middle East for years to come.
Some Democrats have begun to support Trump’s foreign policy decisions regarding Iran, though it remains unlikely that the progressive wing of the party will follow suit. The action against Iran stands as a testament to the administration’s resolve in addressing global nuclear threats, with implications extending beyond the immediate region to other nations with nuclear ambitions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s dual role as acting National Security Advisor has raised concerns about the potential overconcentration of influence in foreign policy decisions. However, proponents argue that a streamlined decision-making process allowed for the decisive action against Iran that might not have been possible with a more bureaucratic approach.