Why Haven't Any Living Former Presidents Publicly Supported Trump for Enforcing Their Unanimous Red Line?

This is a fair question from Matt Continetti, who recites some of the relevant quotations before posing it. I'll add to the list. President Bill Clinton described a nuclearlzed Iran as intolerable and signed the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, "which authorize[d] him to take punitive action against individuals or organizations known to be providing material aid to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iran." President George W. Bush intoned in 2008 that "permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations." He added, "for the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg cooed about President Barack Obama's "crystal clear promise to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." Obama himself said in 2012 that "when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say." For added emphasis, he said, "I don't bluff." President Joe Biden declared that the Iranian regime would “never get a nuclear weapon on my watch” in 2021.

Vice President Kamala Harris, campaigning for the presidency last year, said this: “Make no mistake, as president, I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend American forces and interests from Iran and Iran-backed terrorists, and I will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.” She added that "all options are on the table,” while suggesting "that Trump would not stand by Israel," and accusing him of letting Iran "off the hook." Do any of these people support President Trump's actions to cripple Iran's rogue nuclear weapons program? We don't know because they haven't said anything about it. They all promised they'd do the same. They all offered assurances with tough-sounding rhetoric, even though Obama and Biden went out of their way to enrich the regime. Ultimately, however one slices it, the United States of America doing whatever it takes to prevent Iran from getting nukes has been a decades-long, bipartisan commitment to our own national security, to our Israeli allies, and to the world.

Trump has now followed through with decisive, historic action, backed by remarkable military and intelligence achievements by Israel. And as Continetti points out, all of Trump's living predecessors -- a fraction of whose public statements and pledges on this subject are rehearsed above -- have responded with...nothing:

Bush has largely eschewed any political commentary since leaving office, so maybe he's just sticking with that approach. But Clinton spouts off all the time. Obama just performed a thinly-veiled hand-wringing routine about 'autocracy' in front of cameras and a live audience. Biden has also chirped from the sidelines several times, assailing his predecessor and successor. We know Harris has her phone, as she managed to tweet out a non-condemnatory statement on the violent Los Angeles riots a few weeks ago (while blaming and attacking the man who defeated her). But now that Donald Trump has fulfilled (or dramatically advanced) their collective, clearly-stated promise on a vital matter of world security, gravely weakening a sworn enemy and bolstering our alliances in the process, cat's got their tongues? How interesting.

As of this writing, Clinton, Obama and Biden's latest respective tweets were about Juneteenth. (Harris has an abortion tweet; Bush doesn't appear to have an account). They may despise the man, and resent that voters have twice made him an unwelcome member of their elite fraternity, but some matters ought to transcend personal or political pettiness, vendettas or agendas. Vastly degrading Iran's nuclear weapons project should be one of them, one would think -- presuming they actually believed the words they'd all said. I have my doubts. Even if they believe everything should have done differently, or they think their preferred paths would have been superior (this borders on delusional, in my view), can they not at least approve of the extraordinary results achieved? Or give a modicum of credit to the man sitting in the same office they've occupied? Or at minimum praise the men and women who carried out what appears to have been a complex, flawless mission? It really shouldn't be too hard:

Former Biden White House Coordinator for Middle East Brett McGurk, just now on CNN:

"This is about the best place we could be. I give extremely high marks to this national security team and President Trump for managing this crisis."
— Josh Kraushaar (@JoshKraushaar) June 24, 2025

Meanwhile, as for the alleged 'MAGA split' over Trump's action, stoked by some in the press and certain 'influencer' types, it's virtually nonexistent out in the real world. Perhaps those influencers aren't nearly as influential as they may think:

Ninety percent of President Donald Trump's voters support the U.S. strikes that decimated Iran's nuclear program, according to a new poll, undercutting media claims that the attack set off a "MAGA civil war." The GrayHouse poll, conducted in the immediate wake of the Saturday strikes and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, shows that 76 percent of Trump voters strongly support the attack, compared with 14 percent who somewhat support them. Eighty-four percent of respondents, meanwhile, agreed that the strikes were "limited military actions, not war." Eighty-two percent called the attack "a smarter, more limited operation that can achieve U.S. objectives without leading to a wider war." ... Beyond its topline results, the GrayHouse poll found that 87 percent of Trump voters agree with the statement, "Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would be an existential threat to the United States and our allies that justifies military action to prevent." Seventy-five percent said the "airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities" make them "more confident in America's military capabilities," while 74 percent said they believe the attack made America "much safer" or "somewhat safer."

And it's not just MAGA or Trump voters who feel this way. I'll leave you with this:

At the top of the list of geopolitical concerns is #Iran, with a supermajority of Americans (84 percent) who want to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons, and a plurality (45 percent) who support #Israel conducting targeted airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear… pic.twitter.com/CyJfSbBeEe
— Ronald Reagan Institute (RRI) (@ReaganInstitute) June 23, 2025