With President Donald Trump’s extraordinary decision to attack three of the key/critical Iranian nuclear sites, two questions emerge: First, how will the Iranian populace react to the decision? Second, will this hurt or help the chances for regime change?

Of course, we will not get answers to these questions immediately. But I think it’s fair to say that history, in the not-so-distant past, offers an instructive guide to what could well happen. 

While it is challenging at this point to answer these questions with a high degree of certainty, there is one historical analogy which I was deeply involved in that may provide insights.

More than 24 years ago, while working in the Bill Clinton administration, I was one of the principal actors advising the State Department on the situation in Serbia. There, I led on-the-ground efforts to demonstrate to the Serbian opposition that President Slobodan Milosevic could be beaten.

At the time, many in both the U.S. and Serbia thought that nearly 80-days of NATO bombings and the 1999 Kosovo war had produced a rally around the flag effect in favor of Milosevic.

And yet, the polls I conducted conclusively demonstrated the opposite. 

The data revealed that, despite efforts by the regime to portray Milosevic as strong and popular, he was extremely weak, with a 70% unfavorable rating.

As was acknowledged in the Washington Post at the time, the strategic guidance I provided based on those polls led to the development of a campaign that soon toppled a regime few thought was quite so vulnerable.

There are striking parallels between Milosevic’s downfall and the situation the Khamenei regime finds itself in today.

In both, there are some who feel that foreign airstrikes would strengthen nationalist sentiment in favor of a regime that prioritizes projecting an aura of popularity despite being incredibly disliked by its citizens. 

Further, in Serbia, we found that there was pervasive anger towards the government, particularly over the poor state of the economy. In Iran, there is similar – if not even more intense – dissatisfaction with the regime’s chronic mishandling of economic and national policy.

To be sure, polling data from inside Iran is limited, although Stasis, a firm which specializes in conducting methodologically-sound surveys in the country, released a poll last October that is telling.

They found that nearly 8-in-10 (78%) Iranians feel that the government’s policies are to blame for the country’s economic struggles.

Additionally, in a country of 90 million, where roughly 60% are under the age of 30, the same poll shows that more than three-quarters (77%) of Iranians believe that ‘Iranian youth do not see prosperity for their future in Iran.’

All of this is to say that like Milosevic’s regime, the Iranian government appears to have strong popular support, but underneath the surface, is extremely weak and vulnerable.

For many, the idea that Israel – and especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – could bring about regime change in Iran is hard to take seriously. 

But, a more detailed examination of the current situation, as well as Iran’s own recent history, supports the notion that Netanyahu could be more accurate than not.

Consider the history: Since 2009, there have been 10 nationwide protest movements, with millions of Iranians taking to the streets against the government.

And while there was a wide range of causes for those protests – from blatant election fraud to the most recent demonstrations set off by the killing of Mahsa Amini – they all underscore widespread opposition to the current regime. 

In that same vein, much like I saw in Serbia, the large number of protests and their various causes reveal a significantly large opposition that, under the right conditions, can effectively mobilize and pressure the regime. 

To that end, whereas we had to actively organize those movements in Serbia, those conditions are already evident in Iran, and on a much greater scale.

Aside from the bleak future facing Iran’s youth, the regime’s oppressive laws towards its nearly 44 million female citizens have turned virtually one-half of the population into second-class citizens with little to lose from rising up, as hundreds of thousands did during the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests. 

Underscoring just how deep the hatred is towards the regime, Iran International has reported receiving letters expressing personal thanks to Netanyahu, and the Jerusalem Post reported than an Iranian source told them, ‘This war has greatly strengthened and revived new optimism’ among Iranians for regime change.

The Post’s source inside Iran continued, saying that ‘conversations around the capital city (Tehran) are focused on the final days of the regime and that they brought it on themselves.’

Outside of Iran, the debate has already begun.

On one side are leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as journalists like former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Yorktown Institute President Seth Cropsey.

Those men have argued – Bolton and Cropsey in the Wall Street Journal, and Netanyahu speaking to Fox News’ Bret Baier and in other forums – that this is the most opportune moment for regime change in Iran since the revolution in 1979.

Given the deep reservoir of anti-regime sentiment among the Iranian people, the argument goes, the best course of action is that Israel’s destruction of the regime’s military and symbols of power will give Iranians the courage to rise up, united, against the government.

On the other side of the debate are those such as French President Emmanuel Macron. Haunted by failed regime change efforts in Iraq and Libya, Macron cast doubt on the possibility for success in pursuing regime change, saying it would ‘result in chaos.’

Some have also argued that Israel’s actions could create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect and spark nationalism among the Iranian people.

To be clear, while both sides have legitimate arguments, based off my experience in Serbia, I believe that Netanyahu and those on his side have a much stronger case.

The Iranian government is weaker than ever before after Israel destroyed virtually its entire chain of command and remains in total control of Iranian skies.

Likewise, unlike Libya and Iraq, Iran has a well-organized opposition, with a much more established sense of national unity than either Iraq or Libya ever had.

Taken together, there is strong evidence underpinning Israel’s belief that the Iranian regime could fall, especially given Israel’s extreme caution in only targeting symbols of the regime in order to avoid stoking nationalism.

Of course, there are risks in encouraging regime change, and it’s not at all guaranteed that the next regime is the one the West wants. It could very well result in a more extreme government led by remnants of the Revolutionary Guard hard-liners.

However, it is a mistake of similar magnitude to dismiss this chance out of hand. History has shown that when an oppressed people, angry at their government, find their confidence and are supported – even only by air power – the outcome need not be chaos, or the survival of the current government. 

It has, and could again, result in genuine regime change.

In both cases of Iran and Serbia there was widespread bombing of the country and indeed the civilians, with collateral damage on the civilian population. In the Serbian case all of the net results was that it strengthened the resolve of the Serbian people to rid themselves of an authoritarian dictator – Milosevic. And in the Iranian case, if history is any guide, it will weaken an already fragile regime and hopefully provide an outlet for the millions of Iranians who want a greater measure of freedom and peace in their lives.

President Donald Trump will be engaging in numerous foreign policy discussions this upcoming week at a NATO summit, where more than just Ukraine will be the focus of conversations between foreign leaders. 

A senior Trump official told the Wall Street Journal Sunday that the president still intends to attend the summit that will be held in The Hague, starting Wednesday. He will depart for the Netherlands on Tuesday and arrive late in the evening the same day. 

It is a slight schedule change from his originally planned departure date of Monday, per previous reports.

Trump was expected to attend a state dinner between foreign leaders on Tuesday evening, but it is unclear whether he will still attend due to the late-Tuesday arrival time. The White House did not respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for additional information about the president’s schedule.

The schedule change comes after the president recently abruptly left the G7 economic summit in Canada to attend to the ongoing situation in the Middle East that tamped up Saturday.

The summit between foreign leaders will likely include conversations about Trump’s recent decision to involve the United States in Israel’s campaign in the Middle East. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to be in attendance as well, with leaders expected to discuss ongoing assistance to Ukraine amid its ongoing war with Russia. However, Ukraine’s crisis is not expected to be the central issue of concern, with global tensions in Iran likely to take a major chunk of the summit’s attention. 

Leaders are also expected to discuss NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s proposal that each member country contribute at least 5% of their gross domestic product to defense spending. The idea, framed as a Trump win, has been rejected by Spain, while others have taken issue with the speed at which the move to increase NATO-member defense spending has taken.

The summit will end Wednesday and Trump will depart back to Washington thereafter. There will be heavy security and protesters have already taken to the streets in protest of the upcoming summit.

Americans traveling abroad are being urged to exercise caution worldwide, as the war between Israel and Iran has resulted in travel disruptions globally.

The U.S. State Department issued a warning to those traveling around the world, citing the potential for demonstrations against U.S. citizens.

‘The conflict between Israel and Iran has resulted in disruptions to travel and periodic closure of airspace across the Middle East,’ the State Department said in its Worldwide Caution advisory. ‘There is potential for demonstrations against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. The Department of State advises U.S. citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution.’

Last week, the State Department warned U.S. travelers to not travel to places like Israel, Gaza and the West Bank because of armed conflict, terrorism and civil unrest.

The threat comes as terrorist groups, lone-actor terrorists and other violent extremists continue to plot possible attacks in those areas with little to no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets and local government facilities.

Government officials in Turkey have also been cautioned to maintain a low profile and avoid personal travel to the country’s southernmost provinces.

The alert issued on Sunday reads, ‘Negative sentiment toward U.S. foreign policy may prompt actions against U.S. or Western interests’ in Turkey.

It adds that activities in the past have included demonstrations, calls for boycotts of U.S. businesses, anti-U.S. rhetoric and graffiti.

If traveling abroad, the State Department advised reviewing its website for alerts pertaining to the specific destination being visited.

The advisory comes after President Donald Trump ordered military strikes on Iran’s key nuclear facilities in what officials are calling ‘Operation Midnight Hammer.’

After the bombing, Iranian officials warned of retaliation against the U.S.

The State Department often issues alerts and travel advisories for Americans overseas.

The travel advisories range from ‘exercise normal precaution’ to ‘Do Not Travel,’ which is reserved for parts of the world where there is ongoing conflict, ethnic or religious discrimination or where U.S. citizens are generally not welcome.

Other reasons for alerts include crime rates, health concerns and piracy in some parts of the world. 

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said that Israel is ‘not dragging’ the U.S. into its war with Iran, pushing back against growing fears of a broader regional conflict after Washington sent an overnight strike against three major Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday.

Herzog made the statement during an appearance on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ with host Kasie Hunt on Sunday, in response to President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles against Iran’s key nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

‘We made clear throughout that we are not dragging America into a war,’ Herzog said. ‘We are leaving it to the decision of the President of the United States and his team, because it had to do with America’s national security interests, period. We are not intending, and we don’t ask for America now to go to war because the Iranians are threatening Israel.’

The Israeli leader added that the American decision to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was ‘the right step’ for the U.S., describing the Iranian nuclear program as a threat to American and global security. 

‘The decision was taken because the Iranian nuclear program was a clear and present danger to the security interests of all the free world, especially the leader of the free world,’ Herzog added. ‘America, as the leader of the free world, was actually at risk from this program, and that is why it was the right step to do.’

Despite Washington’s military involvement, Herzog stressed that now is ‘the moment where one thinks about diplomacy.’ He urged that any renewed talks with Iran must ‘be nuts and bolts and very clear,’ citing a history of previously failed negotiations due to what he described as Iranians ‘lying constantly.’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also reiterated Herzog’s message during an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ with host Maria Bartiromo, asserting that the U.S. is ‘not at war’ with Iran. 

Rubio added that regime change is ‘not the goal’ and that Washington is still offering a diplomatic path forward. 

Vice President JD Vance said Sunday that America ‘is not at war with Iran,’ but rather is at war with the Iranian nuclear program, which was ‘substantially’ set back by U.S. strikes.

In an appearance on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Vance praised President Donald Trump’s ‘decisive action to destroy the program’ and expressed an ‘incredible amount of gratitude’ to the U.S. troops, who, he says, flew thousands of miles on a 30-hour non-stop flight, ‘never touched down on the ground’ and dropped a 30,000-pound bomb ‘on a target about the size of a washing machine.’ 

‘No military in the world has the training, the skills, and the equipment to do what these guys did last night,’ Vance said. ‘I know the president and I are both very proud of them, and I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program. The president’s been very clear about this, and thanks to the bravery and competence and skill of our great pilots and everybody who supported this mission, we took a major step forward for that national objective last night.’ 

Vance was hesitant to disclose too much sensitive information about the mission, which reportedly involved 125 aircraft. 

ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked the vice president, ‘Can you say definitively that Iran’s nuclear program has now been destroyed?’ 

‘I don’t want to get into sensitive intelligence here, but we know that we set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night. Whether it’s years or beyond that, we know it’s going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to,’ Vance said. 

Pressed on the extent of the damage, the vice president again declined to disclose sensitive intelligence but added, ‘I feel extremely confident, and I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.’

‘That was the objective of the mission –  to destroy that Fordow nuclear site –  and, of course, do some damage to the other sites as well,’ he said. ‘But we feel very confident that the Fordow nuclear site was substantially set back and that was our goal.’ 

Vance separately told NBC’s ‘Meet The Press’ that the U.S. had engaged in a diplomatic process with the Iranians to no avail until around mid-May when Trump then ‘decided to issue some private ultimatums to the Iranians.’ 

‘My message to the Iranians is it would be the stupidest thing in the world,’ Vance said about potential retaliation after the U.S. strikes. ‘If you look at what happened last night, we had an incredibly targeted, precise surgical strike on the nuclear facilities that are the target of the American operation. Our national interest is for Iran to not get a nuclear weapon. Our strikes last night facilitated that national objective. If the Iranians want to enlarge this by attacking American troops, I think that would be a catastrophic mistake.’

Vance reiterated how Trump mentioned in his late Saturday night address from the White House that the United States wants Iran to give up their nuclear program peacefully – but allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon remains off the table. 

‘There is no way that the United States is going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And so they really have to choose a pathway,’ Vance told ABC. ‘Are they going to go down the path of continued war, of funding terrorism, of seeking a nuclear weapons? Or are they going work with us to give up nuclear weapons permanently? If they’re willing to choose the smart path, they’re certainly going to find a willing partner in the United States to dismantle that nuclear weapons program.’ 

He also issued a warning.

‘But if they decide they’re going to attack our troops, if they decide they’re going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon. Then we are going to respond to that with overwhelming force. So really, what happens next is up to the Iranians.’

Trump warned Saturday that ‘any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.’ The U.S. military carried out ‘massive precision strikes’ on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan,’ which Trump said for years carried on a ‘horribly destructive enterprise’ and have now been ‘completely and totally obliterated.’ 

Rep. Thomas Massie is accusing President Donald Trump of falling short of his campaign pledges with his Saturday-night strikes on Iran.

‘I feel a bit misled,’ Massie told Fox News Digital in a Sunday afternoon interview. ‘I didn’t think he would let neocons determine his foreign policy and drag us into another war.’ 

‘Other people feel the same way, who supported Trump — I think the political danger to him is he induces a degree of apathy in the Republican base, and they fail to show up to keep us in the majority in the midterms.’

Massie, a conservative libertarian who has long been wary of foreign intervention by the U.S., has been one of the most vocal critics of the Trump administration’s recent operation.

U.S. stealth bombers struck three major nuclear enrichment facilities in Iran Saturday night. 

Trump and other GOP leaders hailed the operation as a victory, while even pro-Israel Democrats also offered rare praise.

‘Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,’ Trump said Saturday night. ‘And Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.’ 

But progressives and the growing isolationist wing of the GOP blasted it as a needless escalation of tensions in the Middle East, at a time when Israel has been engaged in a weeklong conflict with Iran as well.

Top officials up to Trump himself have said the U.S. is not seeking war with Iran. 

Vice President JD Vance told NBC News’ ‘Meet The Press’ Sunday, ‘We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.’

Massie told Fox News Digital those assurances were ‘ludicrous.’

‘He’s engaged in war. We are now a co-belligerent in a hot war between two countries,’ the Kentucky Republican said, arguing that conflict separates this action from Trump’s strikes that killed deceased Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

‘You can’t say this isn’t an act of war, that it’s a strike outside of a war,’ he said. ‘This is inside, geographically and temporally, of a war.’

The Kentucky Republican notably has broken from Trump on several other occasions and has been one of the few GOP officials to openly clash with the president — particularly on government spending and foreign intervention.

He’s co-leading a resolution to prevent the ‘United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran’ alongside Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., which they introduced days before the strikes. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading a Senate counterpart.

Massie noted that his team was looking at ways to get the resolution on the House floor — while conceding likely opposition from pro-Israel groups and congressional leaders.

‘We’re going to try to use the privileges of the House to get this to the floor,’ he said. 

‘People were saying, ‘Why did you introduce this resolution? The president’s not going to strike Iran.’ He has struck Iran. And now the naysayers said, ‘Oh, well, you don’t need this resolution.’

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said during a Sunday morning press conference that the administration had properly notified Congress about the strikes within existing statute — even as progressives and some conservatives accuse him of bypassing a co-equal branch of government.

‘They were notified after the planes were safely out,’ Hegseth said. ‘We complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act.’ 

But Massie noted that that law also requires Congress to vote on U.S. military intervention in foreign countries within 60 days, if the conflict continues.

‘Even if they’re able to circumvent a vote on the resolution that Ro Khanna and I have introduced, we’re going to have to vote at some point if this becomes a protracted engagement,’ he said.

War powers resolutions can be called up for a House vote after 15 days of inaction by the relevant committee, after the legislation is referred to that committee.

When reached for comment, the White House pointed Fox News Digital to Trump’s most recent Truth Social post calling Massie a ‘grandstander’ and threatening to recruit a primary challenger against him.

‘Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is,’ Trump wrote. ‘Actually, MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes ‘NO,’ no matter how good something may be.’ 

‘MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague! The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I’ll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard. MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one. Thank you to our incredible military for the AMAZING job they did last night. It was really SPECIAL!!!’

Fox News Digital also reached out to Speaker Mike Johnson’s office for comment.

President Donald Trump reported to the West Wing’s Situation Room multiple times across the past week as the conflict in Iran came to a rolling boil and the president ordered strikes on a trio of Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday evening in a surprise operation that took the world by surprise. 

Trump returned to the Situation Room Saturday as the U.S. targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, and was flanked by key officials such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, according to photos from inside the room published late Saturday. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was also in the Situation Room, the White House confirmed to Fox Digital. 

Trump publicly announced the strikes in a Truth Social post Saturday evening, which came as a surprise to the world, as there were no media leaks or speculation such an attack was imminent. He then delivered an address to the nation on the strikes, lauding them as a ‘spectacular military success.’

‘A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan,’ he said. ‘Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success.’ 

‘For 40 years, Iran has been saying, ‘Death to America. Death to Israel.’ They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs,’ Trump continued. ‘That was their specialty. We lost over a thousand people, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular.’

Ahead of the strikes, Trump floated Wednesday he might order an attack on Iran as negotiations on its nuclear program fell apart and the president made repeated trips to the Situation Room.

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,’ Trump told reporters Wednesday on the U.S. potentially striking Iran as it continues trading deadly strikes with Israel. ‘And I said, why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn’t you go? I said to people, why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country. It’s very sad to watch this.’

Fox News Digital spoke to previous presidential administration officials — Fox News host and former Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who served under the first Trump administration, and former National Security Advisor under the first Trump administration John Bolton, who also served as ambassador to the U.N. under President George W. Bush’s administration. They both conveyed the serious and historic tone the room and its meetings typically hold. 

The Situation Room is a high-tech 5,000-square-foot complex in the West Wing of the White House that includes multiple conference rooms. President John F. Kennedy commissioned the complex in 1961 following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba that same year, according to the National Archives. The complex was built in order to provide future presidents a dedicated area for crisis management, and was revamped in 2006 and renovated again in 2023. 

‘I often would sit there and think about the Osama bin Laden raid,’ McEnany told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday morning. ‘This is where we saw our heroic Special Forces take out Osama bin Laden during the Obama administration. And I think we’re at another point where similar decisions are being made, and even bigger decisions that may change the course of history are happening right now in that room.’

Trump had spent hours in the Situation Room since June 16, including on Thursday morning, when he received an intelligence briefing with national security advisers, which followed a Situation Room meeting on Wednesday afternoon, another meeting on Tuesday afternoon with national security advisers and a Monday evening meeting upon his abrupt return from the G7 summit in Canada this week. 

Top national security officials, including  Hegseth, Gabbard, Vance, Rubio and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, were among officials who joined Trump in the meetings as the administration weighs the spiraling conflict. 

Bolton explained to Fox Digital in a Thursday morning phone interview that two types of top-level meetings are held in the Situation Room. 

The first is known as a ‘principals meeting,’ he said, which includes Cabinet secretaries, such as the secretary of state and secretary of defense, and is chaired by the national security advisor — a role currently filled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

‘The principals committee usually meets to try and get everything sorted out so that they know what decisions the president is going to be confronted with,’ Bolton said. ‘They try and make sure all the information is pulled together so we can make an informed decision, set out the options they see, what the pros and cons are, and then have (the president) briefed.’ 

The second type of Situation Room meeting at the top level are official National Security Council meetings, which the president chairs. 

‘He chairs a full NSC meeting, and people review the information, update the situation, and the president can go back and forth with the advisors about asking questions, probing about the analysis, asking for more detail on something, kind of picking and choosing among the options, or suggesting new options,’ said Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor between April 2018 and September 2019. 

‘And out of that could well come decisions,’ he added. 

McEnany served as the first Trump administration’s top spokeswoman at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Coronavirus Task Force operated out of the Situation Room as COVID-19 swept across the nation. 

‘A lot of critical decisions were made during the pandemic,’ she said. ‘It’s a humbling encounter. Every time you go in, you leave your phone at the door. You go in, I think it’s like 5,000 square feet, you’re sitting there, there’s clocks up from every country around the world, the different time zones. And you’re just sitting there as critical decisions are made. And, in my case, it was regarding the pandemic, and there’s back and forth, there’s deliberation, and these decisions are made with the president there, obviously.’ 

She continued that during the pandemic, the task force would spend hours in the Situation Room on a daily basis as the team fielded an onslaught of updates from across the country. Trump frequently received the top lines from the meetings and joined the Situation Room during key decisions amid the spread of the virus. 

‘When he was in there, absolutely, there’s a deference,’ she said, referring to how the tone of the room would change upon Trump’s arrival. ‘Yet, you had key officials who spoke up, who were not afraid to give their point of view to him. But I think there’s a recognition he’s the commander in chief.’

Press secretaries typically do not attend high-profile National Security Council meetings in the Situation Room, but have security clearances and can call into the room if needed, and are given updates from senior officials. 

McEnany added that press secretaries wouldn’t typically want to be in the room for high-stakes talks because ‘you don’t want your head filled with these sensitive deliberations of classified information’ when speaking with the media.

Bolton explained that for an issue such as Iran, the Situation Room meetings were likely restrictive and included top national security officials, such as the secretary of defense, director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

‘Sometimes it includes many more people, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commerce Secretary, things like that,’ he said. ‘But in with this kind of decision, it could be very restrictive, so maybe just – well, there is no national security advisor – but, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, maybe the attorney general.’

Trump’s first national security advisor under the second administration, Mike Waltz, was removed from the role and nominated as the next U.S. ambassador to the UN in May, with Rubio taking on the additional role. The White House has also slashed NSC staffing since Trump took office, including after Rubio took the helm. 

Ahead of the surprise strikes on Saturday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press conference on Thursday — the first since Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran June 12 — and said the next two weeks would be a critical time period as U.S. officials map out next steps. 

‘I have a message directly from the president, and I quote: ‘Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future. I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.’ That’s a quote directly from the president,’ she said Thursday. 

Israel launched pre-emptive strikes on Iran June 12 after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared soon afterward that the strikes were necessary to ‘roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.’

He added that if Israel had not acted, ‘Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.’ 

Dubbed ‘Operation Rising Lion,’ the strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and killed a handful of senior Iranian military leaders.

Trump had repeatedly urged Iran to make a deal on its nuclear program, but the country pulled out of ongoing talks with the U.S. scheduled for Sunday in Oman. 

‘Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign,’ Trump posted to Truth Social Monday evening, when he abruptly left an ongoing G7 summit in Canada to better focus on the Israel–Iran conflict. ‘What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!’ 

Trump said during his address to the nation on Saturday evening following the strikes that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been ‘obliterated’ and that the country has been backed into a corner and ‘must now make peace.’

‘Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,’ Trump said. ‘And Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not. future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.’ 

Leavitt added during Thursday’s briefing that Trump is the ‘peacemaker-in-chief,’ while noting that he is also not one to shy from flexing America’s strength. 

‘The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution to the problems in the global conflicts in this world. Again, he is a peacemaker in chief. He is the peace-through-strength president. And so, if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the president’s always going to grab it. But he’s not afraid to use strength as well,’ she said. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for additional comment on the high-level talks but did not immediately receive a reply. 

The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee said the future of the ongoing conflict involving Iran, Israel and now the United States is ‘really up to Iran to decide.’

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., appeared on ABC’s ‘This Week’ to discuss American strikes against Iran that he said had ‘severely damaged Iran’s critical nuclear infrastructure.’

‘The supreme leader and the ayatollahs in Iran need to understand that President Trump means business,’ Cotton said. 

‘They have a chance to sue for peace here, to dismantle whatever remnants of their nuclear program remain, and to continue to actually survive, because we haven’t targeted the supreme leader, we haven’t targeted their energy infrastructure, we haven’t targeted other critical infrastructure,’ he continued.

‘That’s an implicit message that Iran still has things that they hold dear, that neither the United States nor Israel has struck. Iran needs to heed President Trump’s warning.’

When asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl whether the U.S. would target Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Cotton said he would not ‘rule any single target in or out,’ but made clear that President Donald Trump ‘does not bluff.’

‘And there are still numerous targets that Iran holds very dear,’ Cotton warned. ‘My message to the supreme leader is: Look at the lessons of history. Do not — do not tempt fate. Do not target Americans. Heed Donald Trump’s warning,’ Cotton said. 

The United States inserted itself into Israel’s war against Iran by dropping multiple ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and firing dozens of missiles at Iranian nuclear facilities Sunday morning local time.

Iran lashed out at the U.S. for crossing ‘a very big red line’ with its strikes.

‘The warmongering and lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression,’ Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said, according to the Associated Press, adding that he would immediately fly to Moscow to coordinate positions with close ally Russia.

Fox News’ Laura Garrison and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Russia’s former president said that multiple countries are poised to provide Iran with nuclear warheads after the U.S. launched strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities.

‘The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue,’ Dmitry Medvedev, now the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, said in a Sunday X post. 

‘A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads,’ Medvedev said. 

Medvedev did not list specific countries that might pitch in and support Iran. However, Russia historically has backed Iran’s nuclear program. Russian President Vladimir Putin also offered to mediate peace talks between Iran and Israel on Wednesday. 

Moscow also has offered to intervene and help negotiate a nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran. 

Moscow was involved in the 2015 Iran deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The agreement lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program, but Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018. 

Medvedev’s comments came after the U.S. launched strikes late Saturday targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The mission involved more than 125 U.S. aircraft, including B-2 stealth bombers, according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. 

President Donald Trump had said for days that he was deliberating whether he would conduct strikes against those sites. 

The White House and the State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital regarding Medvedev’s statements. 

Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Ministry claimed the strikes violated international law and called for an ‘end to aggression.’ 

‘The irresponsible decision to subject the territory of a sovereign state to missile and bomb attacks, whatever the arguments it may be presented with, flagrantly violates international law, the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council,’ Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement Sunday. 

Prior to the strikes, Iran cautioned that the U.S. will suffer if it chooses to become involved in the conflict, and previously issued retaliatory strikes against bases where U.S. troops were housed after the U.S. killed a top Iranian general in 2020. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters Sunday that the U.S. would work with allies in the region to aid in force protection in the aftermath of the strikes. 

‘We certainly understand the challenges of allies in the region,’ Hegseth said. ‘And, we have been respectful and in working in collaboration with them as it pertains to basing and sensitivities there.’ 

‘Ultimately, they’ve got a lot of assets and people in those locations also where American troops are co-located. So, that’s a consideration of ours.’ 

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support increased engagement in international affairs, according to a newly released annual summer survey from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute. 

The survey, conducted by polling firms Beacon Research and Shaw & Company Research, marks the third year the Ronald Reagan Institute has conducted a summer survey asking Americans about their attitudes towards foreign policy. It found 64% of Americans overall favor the United States taking a leadership role in international affairs, which is up more than 20% since 2023.

The trend of Americans leaning towards international engagement, as opposed to isolationism, has seen growing support across both parties – even the America-first MAGA wing of the Republican Party, which leads the way with 73% support for greater international involvement, according to the new survey. Meanwhile, 69% of Republicans support the idea, as well as 65% of Democrats, the survey found.

The survey was released less than a day after the Trump administration ordered a massive surprise strike on Iranian nuclear sites in a move designed to cripple Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure. Approximately 73% of registered voters questioned in a recent Fox News national survey said they think Iran poses a real security threat to the U.S.

‘Americans are not retreating from the world,’ the survey’s introduction stated. ‘They are rallying around a foreign policy grounded in peace through strength, strong alliances, and morality in foreign policy.’

According to the summer survey, which was conducted before the recent Israeli airstrikes on Iran, 45% of those questioned said they would support Israel conducting targeted airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Iran faltered. Meanwhile, 37% said they opposed Israeli airstrikes, while 18% said they were unsure. 

Partisan affiliation, while less of a factor when survey respondents were asked generally whether the United States should lead on the international stage, appeared to play a larger role in opinions about engagement pertaining to Iran. Sixty percent of Republicans said they support Israeli airstrikes, but that support dropped to 35% among Independents and 32% for Democrats.

In addition to attitudes about U.S. leadership in global affairs across the world, the annual summer survey from the Ronald Reagan Institute also covers other foreign policy-related questions pertaining to human rights, trade, defense spending and more.

One question sought to gauge an appetite for ‘territorial expansion.’ President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled interest in acquiring strategic assets like Greenland and the Panama Canal, while he even floated potentially garnering control of the Gaza Strip amid the area’s ongoing issues with terrorism.

The survey found that 55% of Americans supported pursuing acquisition of the Panama Canal, while 47% supported the move to acquire Greenland. 

However, there is also a severe distinction between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, with most Democrats opposed and a majority of Republicans in favor of territorial expansion. When it comes to the Gaza Strip, only 33% of the survey respondents overall indicated they were in favor of such a move, including 24% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans. 

This year’s summer survey from the Reagan Institute sampled 1,257 adults across the United States between May 27 and June 2. You can see