Senator Kennedy Says President Trump Had “No Choice” But To Strike Iran [WATCH]

Sen. John Kennedy is defending recent U.S. military strikes on Iranian targets, arguing that President Donald Trump acted to prevent a larger conflict rather than begin one, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

Kennedy addressed the issue during a recent interview on Newsmax, responding to criticism from Democratic lawmakers and some media outlets following the strikes against Iran.

“President Trump did not start a war by entering Iran,” Kennedy said during the interview.

“He is trying to stop a war.”

Here’s What They’re Not Telling You About Your Retirement

Debate over the operation has intensified in Washington as critics argue that the president should have sought congressional authorization before launching the strikes.

Several Democratic lawmakers and major media organizations have framed the operation as a step toward a broader Middle East conflict.

Kennedy rejected that characterization, saying the military action was designed to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear ambitions and expanding its military capabilities.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

The Louisiana senator said intelligence briefings and strategic analysis indicated that Iran’s leadership had no intention of abandoning efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

“They were not going to ever stop trying to develop a nuclear warhead,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy pointed to activity by the Iranian regime following earlier U.S. strikes earlier this year, saying the government quickly began rebuilding its weapons infrastructure.

According to the senator, the regime resumed large-scale missile production in the aftermath of those operations.

“They were manufacturing hundreds of missiles a month,” he explained.

Kennedy also warned about Iran’s growing coordination with global powers, saying the regime was attempting to create a massive weapons stockpile.

The strategy, he said, involved cooperation with China and Russia to build such a large arsenal that any country attempting to strike Iran would face severe regional consequences.

“Their game plan was to manufacture enough missiles with the help of China and Russia so that no one could attack them without them blowing up the entire Middle East,” Kennedy said. “And we could not allow that to happen.”

Kennedy argued that the current U.S. mission has specific military objectives rather than open-ended goals.

According to the senator, the targets include Iran’s remaining nuclear weapons infrastructure as well as facilities used to manufacture missiles and drones.

He also said the operation is aimed at weakening Iran’s naval forces and dismantling military networks associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

“To destroy their manufacturing facilities for missiles and drones, to destroy their navy, which we have done,” Kennedy said. “To destroy all the infrastructure for their army and the Revolutionary Guard.”

Kennedy emphasized that the operation is not intended to lead to a long-term U.S. presence inside Iran.

“I do not believe the president will put boots on the ground,” he said. “I do not believe he wants to stay there permanently. I do not believe he wanted to do this.”

Instead, Kennedy suggested the goal is to degrade the regime’s military capabilities while leaving the future of Iran’s government to its citizens.

“Hopefully we will have undermined the religious zealots sufficiently,” Kennedy said, “so that the people of Iran can rise up and try to do something about it.”

The senator said the president ultimately faced a difficult decision given Iran’s continued military buildup and pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

“I think he had no choice.”

The debate surrounding the strikes is expected to continue in Washington in the coming days.

Supporters of the operation argue that failing to act would have allowed Iran to further expand its nuclear and missile programs, potentially creating greater threats to the United States and its allies in the region.

Opponents continue to question the scope of the military action and whether additional authorization from Congress should have been required before the strikes were carried out.

For Kennedy and other supporters of the administration’s approach, the central argument remains that the strikes were intended to stop a larger conflict before it could begin.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.