Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called for the president to go ‘all-in’ for Israel should a diplomatic end to the conflict with Iran not be met.

Earlier in the day, President Donald Trump called on Iranian leaders to return to the negotiating table to strike a nuclear deal to avoid ‘even more brutal’ attacks.

Graham lauded Trump’s desire to bring Iran back to the table but countered that ‘if Iran refuses this offer, I strongly believe it is in America’s national security interest to go all-in to help Israel finish the job.’

‘One of the benefits of this approach is that it would substantially undo the damage done to our reputation by Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan,’ Graham said on X. 

‘If diplomacy fails, going all-in for Israel shows that America is back as a reliable ally and a strong force against oppression. It would strengthen our hand in all corners of the world, as well as all other conflicts we face.’

His zeal to support the Jewish State came before Fox News reported that two U.S. Navy Destroyers, the USS Sullivans and USS Arleigh Burke, were assisting Israel to shoot down incoming missile volleys from Iran.

However, other pro-Israel lawmakers were not ready to see American troops deployed in the region and believed Trump would be the key to preventing any action from the U.S.

‘I can’t imagine a world in which that happens,’ Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. ‘I’d be opposed to that. The president is adamantly opposed to that. I trust President Trump here to keep our troops and other personnel safe in the region.’

Hawley said Trump ‘has offered Iran an off-ramp here for a long time’ through the nuclear agreement negotiation and noted the president again offered an out.

‘You know, they ought to take that off-ramp,’ he said.  

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, R-Idaho, told Fox News Digital in a statement that ‘no one hates to see U.S. troops put at risk more than our president.’

‘President Trump has worked tirelessly to end wars and stop killing. And, in this case, I know he will continue to do all he can to keep U.S. troops out of harm’s way as the war between Israel and Iran unfolds,’ he said.

Israel’s strike on Iran was intended to take out the country’s nuclear enrichment program and carry out targeted attacks on a number of top Iranian officials.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., said the strike was ‘warranted’ given Iran’s years of aggression against Israel, but he agreed with the president that negotiations needed to resume.

‘A regime that chants ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,’ he said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘Israel has every right to defend itself, and America stands with Israel.’

But others, like Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., accused Trump of killing the Iran nuclear agreement and contended that the end of negotiations ‘accelerated Iran’s development towards a bomb.’

Still, he hoped a deal could be made to prevent further ‘escalation in the region that could endanger American citizens, troops and our interests.’

‘As we support Israel in protecting their people from Iran’s response, everyone needs to be focused on de-escalation,’ Kelly said in a statement.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

Democratic lawmakers are sounding off on the Israel-Iran conflict, criticizing Israel’s initial airstrikes Thursday night in the capital of Tehran.

Israel launched ‘Operation Rising Lion,’ targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure, and Iran responded with strikes in Tel Aviv, injuring at least five people.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released a statement Friday calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an ‘extremist.’

‘The world is more dangerous and unstable as a result of the extremist Netanyahu’s government ongoing defiance of international law,’ Sanders wrote. ‘First, he uses the starvation of children in Gaza as a tool of war, a barbaric violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now, his illegal unilateral attack on Iran risks a full-blown regional war.’

Sanders added the strikes ‘directly contravened’ U.S. interests in resolving long-standing tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. 

‘Talks were planned for Sunday, but Netanyahu chose instead to launch an attack,’ Sanders wrote. ‘The U.S. must make it clear that we will not be dragged into another Netanyahu war. Along with the international community we should do everything possible to prevent an escalation of this conflict and bring the warring parties to the negotiating table.’

Senate Foreign Relations member Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., chimed in on social media Friday morning.

‘Netanyahu wasn’t trying to help diplomacy; he was trying to destroy diplomacy,’ Murphy wrote. ‘How do we know? They reportedly targeted and killed Iran’s chief negotiator with Trump.’

Tim Kaine, D-Va., who also serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added he could not understand why Israel would launch a preemptive strike when a meeting was scheduled between the U.S. and Iran this weekend.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said military aggression is ‘never the answer.’

‘Israel’s alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence,’ Reed wrote. ‘These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces. While tensions between Israel and Iran are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer.’

By Friday afternoon, some Democrats seemingly changed their tune in response to the counter-attack.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., slammed Iran’s response, calling it ‘cowardice.’

‘#Israel’s strike on #Iran was targeted precisely at senior Iranian military commanders and military sites that posed an existential threat to Israel,’ Sherman wrote. ‘The Islamic Republic’s response? To target civilian centers in #TelAviv. Unsurprising cowardice from a regime that has spent decades brutalizing its own people.’

Others evaded the conversation all together.

‘This is a rapidly evolving situation, and it’s critical that the United States works with our allies and avoid steps that will cause further escalation across the region,’ Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., wrote in a statement. ‘For years, Iran has threatened the safety of Israel and the region, and Israel has an undeniable right to defend itself and its citizens.’

National security and China experts are warning that Israel’s attack on Iran is an example of why Beijing’s efforts to purchase land and other assets within the United States need to be stopped immediately. 

After the initial attacks began on Friday, news reports began surfacing indicating that Israel had secretly built a drone base on Iranian soil that it used to launch its attacks. The operation was years in the making, one Israeli security official told the Jewish Chronicle, adding that weapons systems and soldiers had been smuggled into the country ahead of time. 

‘Look at the ways Israel penetrated Iran for sabotage operations. Now look at the Chinese companies and assets permeating the US power grid (solar converters), local law enforcement (DJI drones), and social media (TikTok),’ China policy expert Michael Sobolik wrote in a post on X. ‘The CCP is preparing to paralyze us in a crisis.’

Gabriel Noronha, president of Polaris National Security, also drew parallels between the China land grab in the United States and the recent Ukrainian drone strike that decimated a significant portion of Russia’s air fleet. The attack reportedly involved drones smuggled into Russia and released near airfields. 

‘After Ukraine’s drone operation in Russia and Israel’s operation in Iran, it is obvious that America’s enemies will try to replicate that playbook on our soil,’ Noronha said. ‘It is increasingly dangerous to allow Chinese companies and individuals to own land – especially near our military bases and critical infrastructure. Left unchecked, we are opening our land to host clandestine Chinese military bases to launch all sorts of attacks and cripple our nation in wartime.’

Officials in the United States have been sounding the alarm for years now about China’s efforts to purchase land near military bases, and other strategic assets that could help them sabotage the country. 

Just recently, the Arizona legislature passed a bill meant to block Chinese entities from obtaining more than a 30% stake in Arizona real estate, but it was vetoed by Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs. According to the bill’s sponsor, China had recently been trying to lease property near a major Air Force base in the state.

Michael Lucci, the CEO and founder of State Armor Action, a conservative group with a mission to develop and enact state-level solutions to global security threats, warned Friday that if the United States does not get serious about interrupting China’s asset grab, it risks losing a war with them. He said land grabs are just the ‘tip of the iceberg.’

‘CCP land ownership is bad but it’s tip of the iceberg,’ Lucci said. ‘Their industrial property holdings are worse, as is their port access. Perhaps worst of all is their deep penetration of critical infrastructure and govt systems.’

‘I now understand the potential problem of the Chinese government owning land in America,’ added writer and podcast host Jamie Weinstein.

A federal judge in Maryland on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and ordered their reinstatement — teeing up another high-stakes court clash centered on Trump’s ability as commander-in-chief to remove or otherwise control the members of independent agencies.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, sided with the three ousted members of the board — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — in ruling that their firings were unlawful and ordered all three members to be reinstated to their posts.

In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does ‘not interfere with’ Trump’s executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision is a near-term blow for Trump, and comes just weeks after the Supreme Court last month agreed to uphold, for now, Trump’s removal of two Democratic appointees from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB). 

Both board members had challenged their terminations as ‘unlawful’ in separate lawsuits filed in D.C. federal court. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in May to temporarily allow the firing of both board members, siding with lawyers for the Trump administration, who had urged the justices to keep both members on the job while the case continued to move through the lower courts.

In his ruling, Maddox sought to distinguish those cases from the terminations of members of the CPSC board and said that the Trump administration, in this case, had failed to identify neglect or malfeasance by any other Senate-confirmed commissioners on the CPSC, which is required by law to justify their removals. 

‘For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds no constitutional defect in the statutory restriction on Plaintiffs’ removal and that Plaintiffs’ purported removal from office was unlawful,’ he said in the order.

‘The Court shall enter an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion, denying Defendants’ motion, and providing declaratory and injunctive relief permitting Plaintiffs to resume their duties as CPSC Commissioners.’

The decision clears the way for the members to return to their roles on the board, pending an appeal to higher courts by the Trump administration. 

The case is the latest in a string of challenges centered on Trump’s ability to remove members of independent boards. Like the NLRB and MSPB rulings, it centers on the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.

Maddox invoked the uncertainty created by the preliminary posture of the NLRB and MSPB cases, which saw both plaintiffs removed and reinstated to their positions multiple times — which he said was the basis for ordering more permanent injunctive relief.

‘Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again,’ said Maddox. ‘The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment.’ 

: More Americans support rather than oppose Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a new national poll conducted before Israel’s Friday attack on Iran.

But the survey, released by the Ronald Reagan Institute, indicates that most Democrats and Republicans don’t see eye-to-eye on the issue.

According to the poll, which was first shared with Fox News on Friday, 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 fail.

Thirty-seven percent said they opposed Israeli airstrikes, with 18% unsure.

But the poll indicates a partisan divide.

Six in 10 Republicans said they support the airstrikes, but that backing dropped to 35% among independents and 32% among Democrats.

Twenty-seven percent of Republicans opposed the Israeli airstrikes, with a third of independents and just over half of Democrats opposed.

The poll of adult Americans was conducted, May 22-June 2, before Israel’s unprecedented attack on Iran, named ‘Operation Rising Lion,’ which included strikes on both the Islamic State’s nuclear program and military leaders.

Iran on Friday said the U.S., as a ‘backer’ of Israel, ‘shall be held fully accountable’ for the series of strikes Jerusalem levied overnight against Tehran, its nuclear and military facilities, and top officials – deepening retaliatory concerns over U.S. bases near Iran.

The U.N. Mission to Iran sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council condemning the attacks that killed four military commanders, one Iranian official allegedly involved in the nuclear talks with the U.S., and two nuclear scientists, and said that Israel’s ‘conduct’ in the region ‘poses a serious threat to international security.’

But earlier this week, just days ahead of a planned meeting between Washington and Tehran in Oman to discuss nuclear negotiations, Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh threatened to hit U.S. bases in the Middle East, should Israel once again directly strike the Persian nation. 

‘Some officials on the other side threaten conflict if negotiations don’t come to fruition,’ Nasirzadeh said, according to Reuters following early reporting that Jerusalem was considering a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. ‘If a conflict is imposed on us … all U.S. bases are within our reach, and we will boldly target them in host countries.’ 

The Trump administration announced a partial evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Iraq and authorized military dependents to leave locations across the Middle East, but it remains unclear how many Americans are expected to depart from the region. 

President Donald Trump on Thursday said the decision was made out of an abundance of caution and told reporters ‘I had to do it.’

‘We have a lot of American people in this area. And I said, we got to tell them to get out because something could happen soon, and I don’t want to be the one that didn’t give any warning and missiles are flying into their buildings,’ he added in reference to the feared military escalation between Israel and Iran.

Defense officials in October 2024 said some 40,000 service members were stationed throughout the Middle East, many of which are in striking range of Iran. 

The U.S. military has at least 19 sites spread across the region, eight of which are considered to be permanent, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. 

These sites are located in countries that border or are geographically near Iran, including Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates. 

But Iran’s lack of immediate defensive response to Israel’s Thursday night strike has prompted questions over whether Tehran would be able to pick a fight with the U.S. and create a third front. 

‘Given the fact that in January 2020, Iran launched short-range, precision strike ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq for killing Qasem Soleimani – the regime’s chief terrorist – this is not a theoretical exercise,’ Iran expert with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Benham Ben Taleblu told Fox News Digital. ‘The regime has proven an ability to land blows at these bases before.

‘It is possible, and it’s not theoretical, given that the regime has done this in the past and lived to tell the tale,’ he added. 

Ben Taleblu said he believes that Iran, at this moment, is looking to make sure the U.S. is not only uninterested in engaging in direct conflict against Tehran, but could even distance itself from Israel.

‘There is a political element to the regime continuously threatening America, which is to try to take advantage of the desire for de-escalation that exists in America,’ the expert added. ‘To try to put as much daylight between America and Israel as possible, and to turn America from an ally or partner of Israel, into just observer of yet another Middle East crisis. 

‘This is how Tehran is politically, trying to put America on the sidelines when militarily, it might struggle – militarily, it would struggle,’ Ben Taleblu added.