A New War in the Middle East—And Why the MAGA Schism May Decide America’s Fate
In the early hours of Friday, Israel launched a sweeping series of airstrikes across Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, military bases, and the homes of top Iranian scientists and commanders. Israeli leaders claim these attacks are necessary to “wipe out Iran’s nuclear program” and prevent what they allege is an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb—a claim that, as we will see, is hotly disputed by international watchdogs and U.S. intelligence. The strikes, which killed dozens including high-ranking Iranian officials and nuclear scientists, mark the most direct military confrontation between the two countries in decades and have triggered immediate Iranian missile retaliation.
While Israel’s stated aim is to neutralize a nuclear threat, bipartisan analysts and foreign policy experts increasingly infer that the real objective is regime change in Tehran—a goal that would almost certainly require direct U.S. involvement. Initially, both President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to distance the United States from the Israeli operation, emphasizing that Israel acted unilaterally. But within hours, Trump acknowledged foreknowledge of the strikes and began framing them as leverage in U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, demanding Iran abandon all uranium enrichment—a maximalist position that experts widely consider unrealistic and unnecessary for nonproliferation. The U.S. has since become further entangled by intercepting incoming Iranian missiles aimed at Israel, prompting Tehran to declare that any such assistance constitutes American involvement and to threaten direct retaliation against U.S. forces in the region. The state of play is now highly volatile, with the risk of a wider regional war—potentially drawing in multiple states and major powers—looming large.
“Israel’s audacious attack will almost certainly torpedo Mr. Trump’s attempts to broker a deal curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. His implication that the Israeli attack could be a lever to soften up the Iranian leadership for diplomacy seemed far-fetched in the wake of images of burning apartment towers in Tehran.”
— The New York Times
Why the MAGA Schism Matters for Everyone
While this crisis is bipartisan and global in its implications, the uncomfortable reality is that President Trump holds all the cards on U.S. policy at this critical juncture. As the New York Times observes, “Trump may have calculated that this was a bargaining move… But it is a big gamble. If the U.S. gets dragged into a war, the entire geopolitical map… will change.” Yet, Trump is far more likely to heed warnings and political risks voiced by MAGA-aligned figures than by Democratic critics, international legal scholars, or even seasoned foreign policy experts.
This is why the current schism within the MAGA movement is so consequential—not just for the future of the Republican Party, but for the fate of U.S. foreign policy and the risk of a catastrophic regional war. For progressives, moderates, and anyone seeking to avoid escalation, it is the anti-war wing of MAGA, not bipartisan think tanks or congressional Democrats, that has the president’s ear. In this moment, building bridges or at least rooting for the likes of Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk is not just pragmatic—it may be the only realistic path to restraint.
1. MAGA’s Anti-Interventionist Revolt—and the Threat to Trump’s Coalition
U.S. neutrality is not credible.
MAGA critics argue that intelligence sharing, missile interceptions, and
Trump’s public rhetoric make the U.S. a de facto party to the conflict,
regardless of official denials.
Escalation is built in.
They warn that Israel’s strategy is to provoke a war that the U.S. will
be unable to avoid, especially if Iran retaliates against U.S. assets or
allies.
Regime change, not nonproliferation, is the real goal.
Pointing to decades of recycled warnings that Iran is “weeks away” from a
bomb—warnings not supported by current U.S. intelligence or IAEA
reports—they argue that the demand for “zero enrichment” is designed to
make diplomacy impossible and force confrontation.
A war with Iran would be catastrophic.
MAGA’s anti-war wing, echoing bipartisan foreign policy experts, warns
that direct conflict would cost American lives, destabilize the region,
and betray the “America First” promise.
There is a palpable sense of betrayal and frustration
among many in the 'America First' camp, as they have fundamentally
turned against the notion of US involvement in or endorsement of such
conflicts.
— Trita Parsi, Quincy Institute
Notably, this schism is not reflected in Congress, where nearly all Republican lawmakers and party leaders have strongly backed Israel’s actions and called for robust U.S. support, with only a handful of dissenters like Rand Paul and Marjorie Taylor Greene warning against escalation. The split is instead most visible among MAGA-aligned media personalities, grassroots activists, and a segment of the base.
2. Public and Political Opinion: No Consensus, Deep Divisions
Republican lawmakers are nearly unanimous in supporting Israel’s strikes and warning Iran against retaliation, with hawkish rhetoric from leaders like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton.
Democrats in Congress are divided: some, especially progressives and a few committee leaders, have condemned the strikes as reckless and warned against being dragged into war. Others, including many pro-Israel Democrats, have applauded Israel’s actions and stressed the U.S. commitment to Israeli security.
Among the public, polling shows deep concern about Iran’s nuclear program and a preference for diplomacy—but also substantial support for military action if diplomacy fails.
A recent Rasmussen poll found 57% of likely voters would support U.S. military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program, with 77% “concerned” about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
A Reagan Institute/Fox News poll showed 45% of Americans support Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, with 60% of Republicans and 32% of Democrats in support.
Most Americans oppose sending U.S. ground troops (about 60% opposed), but are more evenly split on airstrikes.
Support for diplomacy remains strong, especially among Democrats and independents, but is not a clear majority position among Republicans.
The Democratic base is also divided, with a significant progressive bloc opposing escalation, but many others supporting Israel’s actions or expressing ambivalence.
Oil prices spiked and stock markets skidded as the
prospect of a wider war rattled a world already buffeted by Mr. Trump’s
zigzag course on tariffs. What loomed above all was the uncertainty
about what comes next.
— The New York Times
3. Verifying the MAGA Non-Interventionist Claims
The core arguments advanced by MAGA’s anti-war wing are backed by authoritative sources. U.S. intelligence and the IAEA both report that while Iran has expanded its enrichment activities, there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program or a decision by Iran’s leadership to build a bomb.
Military analysts and foreign policy experts agree that Israel cannot destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure alone and would likely require U.S. military support if the campaign expands—making U.S. involvement hard to avoid.
Iran has already stated it considers the U.S. a co-belligerent due to intelligence sharing and missile defense support, and has threatened to retaliate against U.S. assets if it continues.
Will the United States be dragged into the conflict
beyond what it has already done to defend Israel from Iran’s
retaliation? If it is, will that expose American troops and assets in
the region to attacks by Iran or its proxies?
— The New York Times
4. Bipartisan and Cross-Ideological Cooperation—And Why It Matters Now
This is one of those rare moments in U.S. politics where non-interventionists on the right and left are speaking with a unified voice. Figures like Tucker Carlson (right) and Jeffrey Sachs (left) have appeared together to denounce the push for war and expose the regime change agenda behind the current escalation.
Responsible Statecraft, the flagship publication of the bipartisan Defense Priorities think tank, regularly features analysis by former officials and scholars from both parties advocating for restraint.
Congressional cooperation is limited. While a handful of lawmakers from both parties have called for restraint, the overwhelming majority of Republicans and many Democrats have supported Israel’s actions or remained silent.
But in this moment, it is the MAGA anti-war voices—those closest to Trump—who have the greatest chance to actually change the administration’s course. For progressives, moderates, and all who fear escalation, this is a time to build bridges or at least root for those within the president’s own movement who are sounding the alarm.
Trump may have calculated that this was a bargaining
move... But it is a big gamble. If the U.S. gets dragged into a war, the
entire geopolitical map — from Paris to Moscow to Washington to Beijing
— will change.
— Vali Nasr, former dean of Johns Hopkins SAIS, quoted in The New York Times
5. The High Stakes for All Americans
The risks of escalation are not abstract. A U.S.-Iran war would likely draw in regional and global powers, threaten U.S. troops and assets, destabilize energy markets, and cost countless lives.
If Trump is seen as betraying his anti-war promises, MAGA could fracture, reshaping the Republican Party and the 2026 midterms.
Another war of choice—especially one justified by recycled, unsubstantiated nuclear fears—would further erode U.S. standing and moral authority.
A regionwide war... would upend Mr. Trump’s foreign
policy agenda, which is tilted toward trade policy and economic
competition with China. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump
presented himself as a peacemaker in Ukraine and the Middle East —
goals that now look more elusive than ever.
— The New York Times, quoting Vali Nasr
In sum:
The anti-interventionist revolt inside MAGA is not just a partisan
spat—it is, at this moment, the most consequential domestic check on
escalation toward a disastrous new war. The facts are on the side of
restraint, and the stakes could not be higher. Whether Trump listens to
his MAGA critics may determine not just his political future, but the
course of U.S. foreign policy—and global security—for years to come.
Endnotes
-
Responsible Statecraft, “Trump knew about Israel attacks, already threatening 'next' ones,” June 13, 2025.
-
Al Jazeera, “How US politicians responded to Israel’s attacks on Iran,” June 13, 2025.
-
Iran International, “Over half of US likely voters back attack against Iran nuclear sites - poll,” May 29, 2025.
-
Fox News, “Republican, Democrats, disagree on Israeli airstrike: polls on Iran's nuclear program,” June 13, 2025.
-
The Hill, “Israel-Iran conflict poses new dilemma for Democrats,” June 14, 2025.
-
Al Jazeera, “‘Drop Israel’: How military escalation with Iran divides Trump’s base,” June 14, 2025.
-
Axios, “The intra-GOP fight over Israel's strikes on Iran,” June 13, 2025.
-
Israel Hayom, “‘Losing the base’: MTG warns Trump over Iran threats,” May 4, 2025.
-
Economic Times, “Friend-turned-foe: Tucker Carlson blasts Trump for being complicit in backing Israel’s attacks against Iran,” June 14, 2025.
-
Jewish Insider, “Senior Republican senators, pro-Israel Dems express support for Israel’s strike against Iran,” June 13, 2025.
-
The Daily Beast, “MAGA War on Trump Over Israel's 'Excellent' Iran Strike,” June 13, 2025.
-
Politico, “MAGA Warned Trump on Iran. Now He's In An Impossible Position,” June 13, 2025.
-
Fox News, “Nearly half Americans back Israeli airstrikes on Iran, poll shows,” June 13, 2025.
-
Breitbart, “Poll: 57% of Americans Favor Military Action to Stop Iran from Going Nuclear,” May 29, 2025.
-
The Media Line, “What Do We Know About Israel's Possible Strike on Iran?” June 12, 2025.
-
Times of Israel, “Israeli strikes on Iran divide Trump’s coalition, pitting hawks against isolationists,” June 13, 2025.
-
CNN, “Americans’ – and Republicans’ – increasingly complicated relationship with Israel,” June 13, 2025.
-
Jewish Insider, “Successful Israeli strikes on Iran elicit divided response from Senate Democrats,” June 13, 2025.
-
The Hill, “Republicans respond to Israel’s strikes on Iran: ‘Game on’,” June 13, 2025.
-
Times of India, “MAGA splits over Trump's backing of Israel,” June 14, 2025.
-
Newsmax, “Rasmussen Poll: 84% Back Trump on Stopping Iran Nukes,” June 3, 2025.
This update reflects the latest polling and congressional responses as of June 14, 2025.
.
Escalation is built in. They warn that Israel’s strategy is to provoke a war that the U.S. will be unable to avoid, especially if Iran retaliates against U.S. assets or allies
.
Regime change, not nonproliferation, is the real goal. Pointing to decades of recycled warnings that Iran is “weeks away” from a bomb—warnings not supported by current U.S. intelligence or IAEA reports—they argue that the demand for “zero enrichment” is designed to make diplomacy impossible and force confrontation
.
A war with Iran would be catastrophic. MAGA’s anti-war wing, echoing bipartisan foreign policy experts, warns that direct conflict would cost American lives, destabilize the region, and betray the “America First” promise
.
Democrats in Congress are divided: some, especially progressives and a few committee leaders, have condemned the strikes as reckless and warned against being dragged into war
.
Among the public, polling shows deep concern about Iran’s nuclear program and a preference for diplomacy—but also substantial support for military action if diplomacy fails.
.
A Reagan Institute/Fox News poll showed 45% of Americans support Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, with 60% of Republicans and 32% of Democrats in support
.
Most Americans oppose sending U.S. ground troops (about 60% opposed), but are more evenly split on airstrikes
.
Support for diplomacy remains strong, especially among Democrats and independents, but is not a clear majority position among Republicans
.
The Democratic base is also divided, with a significant progressive bloc opposing escalation, but many others supporting Israel’s actions or expressing ambivalence
.
Escalation risk is real and immediate. Military analysts and foreign policy experts agree that Israel cannot destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure alone and would likely require U.S. military support if the campaign expands—making U.S. involvement hard to avoid
.
U.S. “neutrality” is not credible to Iran. Iran has already stated it considers the U.S. a co-belligerent due to intelligence sharing and missile defense support, and has threatened to retaliate against U.S. assets if it continues
.
Bipartisan think tanks and policy groups. Responsible Statecraft, the flagship publication of the bipartisan Defense Priorities think tank, regularly features analysis by former officials and scholars from both parties advocating for restraint
.
Congressional cooperation is limited. While a handful of lawmakers from both parties have called for restraint, the overwhelming majority of Republicans and many Democrats have supported Israel’s actions or remained silent
No comments:
Post a Comment