President Trump has launched U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, leaving congressional leaders divided—some praise the strikes as timely, while others scramble to remember the last time they read the Constitution.

The airstrikes, which some Republicans hail as a bold move to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, have ignited a fierce debate in Congress, with Democrats divided on whether the president just made a smart military decision or launched yet another venture into constitutionally questionable territory. It's a classic showdown where some are fully on board, while others are desperately flipping through the pages of the Constitution like it's a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' book.

Senator Lindsey Graham wasted no time in applauding the airstrikes, declaring it 'the right call' as if the decision had just emerged from a game of golf. He further commended President Trump for actually listening to the advice of those who, presumably, ever suggested that attacking nuclear sites might be useful to national security. It’s always heartening when lawmakers find consensus, even if it’s while dodging tricky constitutional questions.

On a similar note, Senator Ted Cruz chimed in, asserting that the military strikes were essential to stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations. Cruz's enthusiasm resembles that of a kid who just discovered a new video game level—one filled with big explosions and a general sense of patriotic duty. He probably has a countdown to when the next airstrike will be, complete with an inspirational soundtrack.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized the military operations as a clear signal that President Trump is serious about the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran. It's as if he believes that every airstrike adds a notch to Trump's belt of resolve. Maybe there’s a trophy involved, too—'Most Convincing Airstrike.'

Speaking with a hint of direct engagement, Rep. Rick Crawford mentioned he had been in touch with the president prior to the attack. He praised the decision like a coach congratulating a quarterback after a touchdown, perhaps envisioning a potential victory lap around the Capitol building should the situation stay calm. Either that, or he’s envisaging a new series of selfies with a very serious-looking president.

However, the critics weren't far behind, with some Democrats like Rep. Thomas Massie stepping into the ring with legal briefs ready. He raised eyebrows by challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s military actions, calling for Congress to have more say in the decision-making process. Perhaps Massie wore glasses that day just for a more serious effect.

Adding his voice to the chorus, Rep. Jim McGovern expressed frustration that the president acted without seeking congressional approval. It seems that for every airstrike, there are members of Congress attempting to squeeze past old legislative processes in frustration, as if trying to find an abandoned shoe under a pile of paperwork.

Not all Democrats are opposed, though. Senator John Fetterman, for instance, expressed support for the strikes, insisting that Iran should not harbor nuclear capabilities. It appears Fetterman believes that in a world where nuclear ambitions run rampant, sometimes throwing a few airstrikes is a necessary evil. The viewpoint may not be popular at the Thanksgiving dinner table, but it certainly carries weight in the Senate.

However, some voices were notably harsher in their criticism, including Senator Bernie Sanders, who branded the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional.' In typical Sanders fashion, he voiced concerns that only Congress, not a singular presidency, holds the reins when it comes to declaring war. Perhaps he should just wear a t-shirt that reads 'I'm not saying I told you so, but…' at this point.

As the dust settles, it becomes evident that the future of U.S.-Iran relations remains precarious. The polarized responses from Congress demonstrate a deep rift, with some poised to embrace military action while others carefully review their constitutional duty like undergrads studying for finals. Every member of Congress may have opinions, and they also might use this situation as fodder for future campaign ads when the time comes to reach for those coveted votes.

In the aftermath of one flurry of airstrikes and a series of heated discussions, one sentiment rings true: no matter which side of the aisle you reside on, the air must have tasted a little different as Congressional leaders debated the merits and mishaps of Trump’s latest military strategy. It's about as clear as mud, but at least it’s provided plenty of material as Congress heads toward its next session of ‘what on earth were we thinking?’