MAGA Split Over Iran

As the world held its breath in anticipation for Donald Trump’s decision over whether to join Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, the immense weight of the moment threatened (and continues to threaten) to split the American right. The president’s support base has become embroiled in debates between the most ardent apostles of the America-first movement and traditional, neoconservative foreign policy hawks.

Following the attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel on the 7th of October 2023, Israel has systematically targeted Iran’s most important counters to Israeli influence within the Middle East. Hamas had been significantly depleted within Gaza, Hezbollah was hobbled by last year’s confrontations and the Houthis have been pinned by an international coalition. 

For decades, prominent Israeli voices have called for efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Members within the Israeli government argue that they have no choice when faced with what they perceive to be an existential threat from Iran, who they fear would use such a weapon to attack Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has argued that the Iranian regime is accelerating towards completing a nuclear weapon – this is not a view that is necessarily shared by major global players. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a United Nations-affiliated agency, refuted claims that Iran was close to producing a nuclear bomb. 

The Israeli government has taken advantage of the weakening of Iranian capabilities to take what it calls “pre-emptive measures” that would safeguard it against potential nuclear aggression from Iran.

Since the 13th of June, Israeli strikes have targeted key military and nuclear infrastructure in Iran, with the Iranian health ministry reporting at least 430 deaths. Among those who have died include senior commanders within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, many of whom were killed in the first wave of strikes. 

In the first week of the reanimated conflict, Iran launched more than 400 missiles at Israel, killing 24. Even with the sophisticated air defence system, dubbed the Iron Dome, some 10% of Iranian missiles have managed to hit – including a strike on the strategic port of Haifa. 

The conflict between Iran and Israel has been closely watched by the Trump administration who have pledged their diplomatic and military support to Netanyahu’s government. In April of this year, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, a close ally of Trump, led US-Iran negotiations in Rome and Oman which focused on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. These talks stalled after the parties could not come to an agreement on ceasing uranium enrichment within Iran’s borders.

According to administration officials, Trump blocked an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader and, until this past weekend, continued to place his faith in Witkoff’s diplomatic route. Indeed, Trump seems to remain largely committed to diplomacy, having framed his strikes on Iran’s nuclear programme as an encouragement to negotiate forced upon him by a reticent Tehran regime.

Some leading figures within the MAGA movement, however, have argued that strikes are a betrayal of Trump’s previous promises to avoid involvement in foreign conflicts. On the campaign trail, Trump often promised to keep the US out of “endless stupid wars”; yet, he has also held that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon”.

Foremost critics of deeper US involvement include Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz. In an already infamous interview, a fiery spat Carlson, an isolationist, and the hawkish Senator Ted Cruz highlighted the tensions existing in Trump’s base. This civil war has unfolded for days across right-wing media in which rivals have toiled over the future of the MAGA movement. For many, America First is a force for keeping America out of forever wars in the wake of the calamitous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iran dilemma is unique for President Trump. The Trump administration has so far given Israel free rein over its war in Gaza and has all but abandoned Ukraine’s efforts against Russia – neither of these have exposed the tensions between hawks and isolationists to the same extent. For the isolationists, Iran would be a huge blunder that threatens to undermine the cautious message that fuelled Trump’s support. For the hawks, joining Israel in strikes would be the opportunity to weaken an unfriendly power that threatens US influence in the region. 

President Trump wields unprecedented influence over the Republican Party. In a recent interview with The Atlantic, he made it clear that America First means whatever he says it does. His decision is likely to be a practical, not an ideological, decision. Though his intervention has been costly politically with regards to some of his insular base, the history of craven deference to Trump’s judgement will surely serve him well. He has publicly and privately urged patience from Israel in hopes of fruitful negotiations yet has always fiercely opposed any Iranian nuclear program. 

Vice-President JD Vance, meanwhile, has assumed the role of the mediator – in a post on X, he argued that the president had “earned some trust on this issue”. Similar deference to the president was echoed by Charlie Kirk, the isolationist founder of Turning Point USA, who said that Trump is “a man I trust to be making that decision”. 

The latest YouGov poll suggests that roughly half of Americans see Iran as an enemy to the US. With previous Israeli strikes having proved effective at depleting Iranian defences, Trump had a unique opportunity to cripple Iran’s nuclear program. The American-made ‘Bunker Buster’ bombs are made for Iran’s subterranean facilities, adding a touch of military splendour to the popularity boost of preventing an unfriendly power from getting a bomb that would destabilise the balance of power in the region. Whether isolationists have been silenced, and a precedent set in taking significant action against unfriendly actors, remains an open question. If the strikes do turn out to have genuinely crippled Iran’s nuclear programme, the repercussions would certainly be felt in Asia as America seeks to counter the rise of China. Should the strikes fail, painful memories of Iraq and Iran would embolden the isolationist wing of Trump’s base – it would not be fatal to his future but would certainly make any other actions much harder in the future.

Trump’s decision to sanction the strikes has certainly clipped the wings of isolationists, precluding their ascension to hegemony as far as foreign policy on the American right goes. Neoconservative interventionists within the Republican Party, in rapid retreat of late, have been given a lifeline.

Whatever Trump chooses to do next, his decision will define the future of foreign policy on the American right. An easy victory would go down well with those that have seen Iran as a threat for decades and cement the view that occasional interventions can be productive for attaining what is in America’s best interests. This might mean we could see similar actions in Asia against China, the rise of which continues to irk Trump. If Trump now backs off from confrontation with Iran, the isolationists would be vindicated, marking the end of America’s time as global policeman and propelling the world order as we know it into even more uncharted waters.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Khamenei.ir

Licence.

No image changes made.