It’s a measure of President Trump’s success in bombing Iran’s key nuclear sites that even some of his harshest detractors are praising the risky endeavor.

The calculated deception – ‘I may do it, I may not do it’ – and dispatching of a decoy fleet of B-2 bombers were crucial to achieving the mission. 

Yes, the situation may look very different in six months, depending in part on the response of Russia and other allies of Iran, the world’s largest terror state. Just yesterday, Tehran launched ballistic missiles at the U.S. military base in Qatar, with no reported casualties. 

Still, Trump should avoid landing on any aircraft carriers with a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner, a reminder of how George W. Bush’s premature celebration turned into the Iraq quagmire that cost more than 4,000 American lives.

Yes, a sizable chunk of the MAGA coalition was opposed to U.S. intervention after the original Israeli airstrikes on grounds that Trump had always vowed to keep this country out of faraway wars. Some of them are falling into line, as there’s a rally-round-the-president effect after military action – especially when it’s successful. 

Sure, Trump followed up by posting about the possibility of ‘regime change’ – this after JD Vance told ‘Meet the Press:’ ‘We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.’

Maybe the Truth Social message was simply designed to boost pressure on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – who could have been taken out – or maybe Trump is tempted by the W-era mentality of ‘we will be greeted as liberators.’ 

No one is quibbling with the deceptions, any more than Dwight Eisenhower was criticized for deploying dummy tanks and vehicles on D-Day to convince the Nazis that the 1944 attack would come at a different location rather than Normandy.

Bret Stephens, an anti-Trump conservative columnist at the New York Times, called the bombings ‘a courageous and correct decision that deserves respect, no matter how one feels about this president and the rest of his policies…Trump could have continued to outsource the dirty work of hitting Iran’s nuclear capabilities to Israel, hoping that it could at least buy the West some diplomatic leverage and breathing room.’

David Ignatius, not a fan of the president’s foreign policy, wrote in his Washington Post column that ‘Trump and his top advisers acted boldly to hit the prize targets in Iran’s nuclear program — at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz — that remained after nine days of Israeli bombing. The operation was bigger and more comprehensive than even some Israelis had expected, and it showed that the U.S. military, even during the chaotic Trump presidency, still performs with unmatched power, precision and reach.’

But these are among the relatively few exceptions. By and large, liberals and Democrats denounced the president’s action, and conservatives and Republicans hailed it. 

And you know the reaction would have been reversed if Joe Biden was in office and had ordered the airstrikes. 

There’s a legitimate question about whether Trump should have sought approval from the Hill, but this Congress has largely ceded its role on foreign affairs (and on tariffs, for that matter). Besides, a floor debate would have been like sending up neon lights about the coming attack.

Sometimes a commander-in-chief has to attack unilaterally. When Barack Obama and Bill Clinton ordered military strikes without consulting Congress, almost nobody made a big issue of it.

The Times reports that Iran warned Qatar of the retaliatory attack, which was an obvious attempt to minimize casualties and render the half-dozen missiles largely symbolic (though not to the military personnel having to seek shelter). That amounted to a muted initial response by the Iranians, since any American deaths would clearly trigger a further escalation by the Trump military.

The United States is the only country with bunker-busting bombs, which enabled it to damage or destroy the underground uranium enrichment site buried under the Fordow site. The truth is that our experts don’t know how much damage was done far below the surface and may not for weeks.

But given that the U.S. completely controls Iranian airspace, thanks to the earlier Israeli strikes, Trump could order devastating new attacks at any time with virtually no fear of our planes being shot down. And the Iranians are acutely aware of that.

It was deception and misdirection that enabled the Pentagon to pull this off. When Trump said he would decide what to do in the next ‘two weeks’ – a stance echoed by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt – he had already approved the military plan, subject to last-minute reservations. The attack began 30 hours later.  

When Trump dined with Steve Bannon, the most prominent opponent of the U.S. attacks, along with Tucker Carlson, some surmised he was changing his mind. The same was true when he went to a fundraising dinner at his Bedminster, N.J. golf club, and nothing seemed imminent.

When Fox’s Brian Kilmeade asked Leavitt yesterday about her boss’s regime change posting, she did not minimize it:

‘If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution, which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way, why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?’

Multiple media reports say Trump was angry with his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, for testifying in March that the intelligence community believes that Iran is nowhere near building a nuclear weapon, and a video she made after visiting Hiroshima. She has tried to walk it back, but there is little question she has been partially sidelined.

The Washington Post yesterday reported having obtained the audio file of an Israeli intelligence operative’s June 13 call to a senior Iranian commander:

‘I can advise you now, you have 12 hours to escape with your wife and child. Otherwise, you’re on our list right now,’ the translation said. The operative suggested Israel could target the general and his family at any moment: ‘We’re closer to you than your own neck vein.’

There is no independent verification that the call was actually made.

I don’t use this word lightly, but Iran is an evil country. Anyone of a certain age recalls how the Iranians, in 1979 after the ouster of the Shah, held our embassy staffers hostage for 444 agonizing days.

The ruling theocracy also finances the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact, if it had not been for Hamas’ spectacular miscalculation in mounting the barbaric massacre in Israel on Oct. 7 – which again included the seizing of civilian hostages – Gaza would not now be the wasteland it has become. Israel bears some responsibility for this, yet also knows that it would be the prime target if Iran succeeds in enriching weapons-grade uranium.

Finally, even if things go south, what happened on Sunday has in my view changed the way people look at Donald Trump. He rolled the dice in a high-stakes gamble. He’s not just a garden-variety isolationist. He doesn’t have to run again, but he managed to keep everything secret and pulled it off with the aid of our superb military. And that took guts.

Roughly three-quarters of the nation’s health insurance providers signed a series of commitments this week in an effort to improve patient care by reducing bureaucratic hurdles caused by insurance companies’ prior-authorization requirements.

Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, alongside Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced the new voluntary pledge from a cadre of insurance providers, who cover roughly 75% of the population, during a press conference Monday. The new commitments are aimed at speeding up and reducing prior-authorization processes used by insurers, a process that has been long-maligned for unnecessarily delaying patient care and other bureaucratic hurdles negatively impacting patients.   

‘The pledge is not a mandate. It’s not a bill, a rule. This is not legislated. This is a opportunity for industry to show itself,’ Oz said Monday. ‘But by the fact that three-quarters of the patients in the country are already covered by participants in this pledge, it’s a good start and the response has been overwhelming.’

Prior-authorization is a process that requires providers to obtain approval from a patient’s insurance provider before that provider can offer certain treatments or services. Essentially, the process seeks to ensure patients are getting the right solution for a particular problem.

However, according to Oz, the process has led to doctors being forced to spend enormous amounts of man-power to satisfy prior-authorization requirements from insurers. He noted during Monday’s press conference that, on average, physicians have to spend 12 hours a week dealing with these requirements, which they see about 40 of per week. 

‘It frustrates doctors. It sometimes results in care that is significantly delayed. It erodes public trust in the healthcare system. It’s something we can’t tolerate,’ Oz insisted.

The pledge has been adopted by some of the nation’s largest insurance providers, including United Healthcare, Cigna, Humana, Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Aetna and many more. While the industry-led commitments aim to improve care for patients, it could potentially eat into their profits as well if patients start seeking care more often.

The commitments from insurers cemented this week include taking active steps to implement a common standardized process for electronic prior-authorization through the development of standardized submission requirements to support faster turnaround time. The goal is for the new framework to be operational by Jan. 1, 2027.

Another part of the pledge includes a commitment from individual insurance plans to implement certain reductions in its use of medical prior-authorization by Jan. 1, 2026. On that date, if patients switch insurance providers during the course of treatment, their new plan must honor their existing prior-authorization approvals for 90-days while the patient transitions.

Transparency is also a key part of the new commitments from insurance providers. Health plans enjoined with the commitments will pledge to provide clear and easy-to-understand explanations of prior-authorization determinations, including guidance for appeals. The commitment also states that by 2027, 80% of electronic prior-authorization approvals from companies will be answered in real-time.   

Oz, during the Monday press conference, compared the industry-led pledge to the Bible, saying, ‘The meek shall inherit the earth.’

‘I always grew up thinking ‘meek’ meant weak, but that’s not what meek means. ‘Meek’ means you have a sharp sword, a sword that could do real damage to people around you, but you decide, electively, to sheathe that sword and put it away for a while, so you can do goods, so you can do important things where once in a while we have to get together, even if we’re competitors, and agree,’ Oz said Monday.

‘That’s what these insurance companies and hospital systems have done,’ he continued. ‘They have agreed to sheathe their swords to be meek for a while, to come up with a better solution to a problem that plagues us all.’

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.