A seasoned Democratic national security expert has lauded President Donald Trump’s decisive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities while casting doubt on Vice President Kamala Harris’s resolve to make such a tough call.

As reported by the Daily Mail, this unexpected commentary comes from Jamie Metzl, a former National Security Council official under Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, who has openly criticized Trump in the past. 

Metzl, despite his Democratic credentials and vocal opposition to what he calls Trump’s “dangerous and undemocratic” actions, took to social media to commend the president’s bold move against Iran. He described the attack, ordered by Trump, as a “courageous” step in defense of America’s core interests. While some might see this as a rare bipartisan nod, it’s hard not to wonder if this praise is a subtle jab at the current progressive hesitancy toward military action.

Metzl’s Unlikely Praise for Trump’s Decision

Highlighting his own background, Metzl noted his service under Clinton on the NSC and as deputy staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under then-Senator Biden. He made it clear he voted for Harris, yet insisted he’s no “blind tribalist” when it comes to giving credit where it’s due. This attempt at objectivity, while admirable, raises eyebrows about the state of Democratic conviction on hardline security issues.

In his online post, Metzl stated, “I’m perfectly comfortable praising President Trump for bold and courageous actions in support of America’s core national interests, as he took last night.” Such words from a Democrat are jarring, especially when they imply a stronger spine in Trump than in Harris, who Metzl believes would have faltered in ordering such a strike.

Metzl didn’t hold back on his assessment of Harris, writing, “Although I believe electing Kamala Harris would have been better for our democracy, society, and economy, as well as for helping the most vulnerable people... I also believe VP Harris would not have had the courage or fortitude to take such an essential step.” This critique stings, particularly for those who champion Harris as a symbol of progressive strength—perhaps courage isn’t measured solely by empathy after all.

Metzl’s Hawkish Stance on Iran Emerges

As an Iran hawk, Metzl framed the strike as a necessary response to a nation he claims has been “at war with the United States for 46 years” while “racing toward a nuclear weapon.” His invocation of Iran’s “death to America” rhetoric underscores a longstanding tension that many conservatives feel is too often downplayed by softer foreign policy approaches.

Metzl’s commentary extended to Trump’s broader foreign policy posture, referencing the president’s “America first” stance from his second inaugural speech. In that address, Trump promised that American power would “stop all wars” and bring unity to a volatile world—a vision Metzl seems to partially endorse with his praise for the Iran strike, as well as strikes on the Houthis in Yemen.

Following his social media posts, Metzl appeared on Fox News’s “The Story” with Martha MacCallum, reiterating his stance with, “I’m not a blind tribalist and am perfectly comfortable praising President Trump for bold and courageous actions.” While he took a swipe at what he called “lunatics” on college campuses pushing to “globalize the intifada,” his frustration with radical activism aligns with a growing conservative concern over unchecked progressive narratives.

Iran’s Retaliation and Trump’s Response

On Monday, the U.S. successfully repelled an Iranian missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Doha, Qatar, a counterstrike following Trump’s bombing of Iranian sites. Trump, in response, thanked Iran for providing “early notice” of the attack, dismissing it as a “very weak response.” This exchange highlights the high stakes of such military decisions, a reality conservatives often argue is underestimated by dovish policies.

Metzl himself acknowledged the risks, noting, “No actions like this come without risks, and I imagine the story will get more complicated over time.” His candor here is a reminder that even those who support decisive action understand the unpredictable nature of geopolitical chess—a nuance sometimes lost in partisan shouting matches.

Reflecting on historical Democratic leaders, Metzl pointed out that Woodrow Wilson and FDR were elected on anti-war platforms yet adapted to global threats. This comparison seems to suggest that today’s leadership might need a similar pivot, a subtle nudge that conservative readers might see as a call for less idealism and more pragmatism in the face of adversaries like Iran.

Harris’s Silence and Future Implications

Meanwhile, Harris, who served four years in the Senate and one term as vice president, has not yet responded to Metzl’s pointed criticism, though outreach has been made to her camp for comment. As a potential candidate for governor of California, her silence on this issue could fuel narratives about her readiness for high-stakes decisions.

Metzl’s posts after Trump’s Saturday night speech reiterated his stance: “I am not a fan of many of Donald Trump’s actions, but I will speak openly and honestly when he takes bold steps defending America’s interests, as he did tonight.” This repeated emphasis on honesty over partisanship might resonate with conservatives tired of ideological rigidity, even if it comes from an unlikely source.

Ultimately, Metzl’s remarks reopen a critical debate about what true leadership looks like in an era of complex global threats. While his praise for Trump may be a bitter pill for some Democrats, it underscores a conservative belief that national security demands resolve over rhetoric—a principle that Harris, in Metzl’s view, may not fully embody.