House lawmakers, like their Senate counterparts, remain divided over the U.S.’ strikes on Iran following a classified briefing Friday morning, with Republicans praising the strikes and most Democrats remaining skeptical.

“This is a historic time that we live in, and this has been an incredible two weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told reporters. “We delivered a major setback [to Iran’s nuclear weapons program[ that resulted in a feeble, face-saving response from Iran and immediately thereafter the ceasefire agreement.”

Johnson said that the U.S. expects that Iran will now join “direct, good-faith negotiations, not through third parties, not through other countries” and agree to a lasting peace deal.

“We’re on the verge of a real peace in the Middle East for the first time in a long time, and that’s because of the decisive leadership in the United States,” the House speaker said.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) suggested that the factors that prompted the strike would likely have spurred past Democratic presidents into action as well. He argued that the exact timeline of how long the strikes had delayed Iran’s nuclear program is not as relevant as whether the strikes, and the threat of further military action, will convince Iran to give up its nuclear program.

“Everyone agrees that it has set them back substantially. It has destroyed vast amounts of very valuable work, above and below ground,” Issa told Jewish Insider. “Now the question is has it done what it was asked to do, which is to give the Iranian leadership a decision to make — one in which they appear to be, and very well might, have abandoned their nuclear ambitions and be willing to come to the table in a different way than they were at the table for the 60 days that President Trump negotiated.”

He added that, given the widespread destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the “above-ground stuff that they did need,” the U.S. and Israel would be able to know if Iran attempted to restart its nuclear program, and could stop them.

“If the Israelis are willing to not let them start building again, or punish them when they do, then, in fact, that’s what the Iranian leadership has,” Issa said. “Let’s just say, hypothetically, they’re pushed back one year. Can they get one year of building without the Israelis pushing it back again? And the answer clearly is no. So that’s their calculation today.”

“The debate is not about how long, anymore,” he continued. “It’s about, really, abandonment, or at least a pause in which they take no action.”

Asked whether the briefing had provided any clarity as to the Iranian leadership’s thinking on that issue, Issa declined to say, explaining that that information would be highly classified, but said he’d met with anti-regime Iranian diaspora activists the night before who believe that the 12-day Israeli bombardment was a “wake-up call” for the Iranian regime which could also embolden the Iranian people.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, told reporters that the U.S. strikes had “destroyed” their targets — one that he emphasized was achieved without the need for a massive U.S. invasion force or a protracted war.

“This was a spectacular success, spectacular under any measure whatsoever, spectacular with no casualties,” Perry told JI.

He said the briefers had shared information about how much Iran’s nuclear program had been delayed, but said he was not able to share it publicly.

House Democrats remained more cautious about the situation.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee who is a lead sponsor of a war powers resolution aiming to block further U.S. military action against Iran without congressional approval, said that it is “pretty clear there was no imminent threat to the United States,” beyond the ongoing Iranian threat to the world.

“I have not  seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,” that would have justified a unilateral strike without the consent of Congress, Himes told JI.

“The objective here has been a little bit of a moving target,” Himes continued. “And I think we actually got a clear statement of objective today, which was, you know, the secretary of state said it. The objective was to set back or destroy Iranian, Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table. He was clear on that point.”

But he said that the briefing did not indicate that any diplomatic “overtures or discussions” are actually currently underway.

Himes said that the administration has been using “a lot of very sloppy adjectives, like ‘obliterated'” to describe the outcome of the strikes, and said it’s “still too early to tell exactly how much” damage the strikes had done.

He said that the briefing affirmed that the U.S.’ goal in the strikes was not to eliminate Iran’s stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, which “must be accounted for at some point.”

Himes has been publicly frustrated about the administration’s failure to notify him and other senior Democrats about the strike beforehand — he told reporters that he learned about it on X while sitting on his couch on Saturday night — but said that the briefing was “a good start.”

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, told JI that “90% of what I heard in there is public,” when asked if anything he learned in the briefing had impacted his views on the necessity or justification for the strike.

Meeks is another lead sponsor of the war powers resolution, with Himes.

Another House Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive briefing, similarly told JI he “didn’t learn anything that was helpful in drawing a judgement,” and that there was “nothing that you walk away thinking, ‘Well, I learned this, and therefore I might consider whether I can draw an independent judgement on whether this was necessary or not.’”

“I got nothing out of it that I didn’t already think I had walking in,” they continued.

The Democrat said that military leaders had “brilliantly” executed the plan they were told to carry out, but there are still questions about the decision-making and judgement of the administration’s civilian leadership.

“One of the problems that you have … is when you pick such highly partisan heads of departments, you don’t know if the person has got sufficient experience to make certain judgements,” the Democrat said.

Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO), who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told JI, “It’s going to take time to get a full assessment and understanding exactly, exactly the extent of any damages and timelines and things of that nature.”

Bell added, “In order to effectively ensure that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, it’s going to have to be a coordinated effort. Obviously, you have to have credible military deterrence, as we’ve seen. Then there also has to be a commitment to the diplomatic side.”

He added that lawmakers agree on a bipartisan basis that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.