It’s not often that I address foreign affairs in this space, but I believe the events of late warrant an exception — especially because Maine’s congressional delegation will be involved, and approaching the situation with a variety of viewpoints.

This past Saturday, President Trump made the decision — a wise one, I believe — to carry out military action targeting Iran’s nuclear program. While we don’t have any independent analysis of how effective the attack was, it’s hard to believe that it didn’t degrade Iran’s program, if not cripple it completely.

The attack appears to have made it much more difficult for Iran to enrich uranium without causing major civilian casualties on either side — and with no American combat casualties. Furthermore, as of this writing, Iran launched one token attack on an American base in the region that was intercepted — and that’s it. It didn’t retaliate further because it was more concerned about the survival of the regime; if the U.S. and Israel joined forces to launch an all-out assault, they could likely quickly achieve that outcome.

After the invasion would be a different story, though, as we learned in Iraq. Invading and toppling a regime is one thing; building a Western-style democracy, or even a stable new government, is another thing entirely.

The reaction of Maine’s congressional delegation was, predictably, all over the map.

Sen. Susan Collins praised the action, calling it limited, decisive and preferable to the alternative, and that’s correct. In this particular instance, Collins’ reaction is not so much her agreeing with President Trump as it is Trump and his administration coming around to Collins’ way of thinking. She’s always been a traditional Republican when it comes to foreign affairs and national security; she’d probably have supported such an action by any president.

First District Congresswoman Chellie Pingree condemned it, calling on Congress to invoke the War Powers Act, limiting the president’s ability to continue military action — a step that seems unnecessary now.

Sen. Angus King took a slightly more moderate stance, as is his wont, criticizing the process more than the decision — although he certainly didn’t seem pleased about it.

Rep. Jared Golden, meanwhile, praised the decision, which might seem surprising but is right in line with his profile as a moderate — and his experience as a veteran who served in the Middle East.

Even Pingree, though — unlike, say, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — did not float impeaching Trump over his decision to launch the attack without congressional authorization. It’s interesting to me that even AOC went that far. While she isn’t afraid of controversy, I have found her to be generally more politically astute than other left-wing members of Congress.

The biggest question about the strikes, politically, is how much potential they have to sow dissent within both parties. For Republicans, many of the president’s more isolationist supporters — like part-time Maine resident Tucker Carlson — may feel betrayed by the president’s decision.

It ought to be noted, however, that even within the confines of his America-first rhetoric, Trump has always made it clear that he considered it unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. To his credit, Trump at least tried to negotiate; whether those talks can resume is an open question now, but it’s heartening that the conflict appears to be on hold for the moment.

Among Democrats, we see the divide very clearly laid out in our own delegation. Golden, King (an independent who caucuses with the Democrats) and Pingree all had very different things to say about it. Nationally, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania also supported Trump’s decision to strike Iran, while liberals went even further than Pingree in criticizing the decision. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, put out a statement somewhere between King and Pingree, calling for a vote on invoking the War Powers Act.

It’s too early to say, but if the ceasefire does hold, even milder statements of rebuke, like King’s and Schumer’s, will look foolish in retrospect, never mind those of AOC or Pingree.

Trump may well have managed to force Iran back to the negotiating table while destroying its nuclear capacity and avoiding a wider conflict; that’d be a win-win. This shows us how weak the Iranian regime is, and how vulnerable it is, if it has completely backed down. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, debate over this decision will affect both parties for years to come — and loom large over the midterms.