Steve Bannon concerned Trump's 'open ended' position on striking Iran

Bannon called Trump's comments about potential additional strikes "open ended" and said the situation has the potential to escalate.
"This is incrementalism," Bannon said. "If they hit back at American troops, do we go back in and hit again? Next thing you know, brother, you're in a forever war."
A vociferous debate about whether Trump should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities played out among conservatives in the lead up to the June 21 attack. Some prominent MAGA figures said a strike would go against Trump's anti-interventionist approach, which has tapped into deep discontent with prolonged wars in the Middle East and reshaped the party's foreign policy.
Opposition to "forever wars" has become one of the central tenets of the Trump GOP, something the president has repeatedly highlighted in casting himself as a "peacemaker" who would get the country out of war - not start new ones. That makes this a delicate and legacy-defining moment for Trump. It's also a sensitive one for him within his own party.
More: 'It's blowing up': The Iran conflict is sparking a MAGA civil war
Many Republicans are rallying around the president after the Iran strike. Everyone from Trump's former Vice President Mike Pence to a slew of congressional leaders and MAGA figures such as Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk praised the move.
"Great unity in the Republican Party," Trump wrote on social media the day after the attack. "Perhaps unity like we have never seen before."
But tensions remain among conservatives. Bannon pointed to posts on the message board for his show in arguing Trump has "some work to do" to sell his Iran strike to his base, particularly younger conservatives. What comes next will be key. Figures such as Bannon are concerned about seeking regime change in Iran, and don't want to see the situation escalate.
"No regime change war," former Florida congressman and MAGA firebrand turned conservative media figure Matt Gaetz wrote on social media June 22, saying he hopes any Iran retaliation would be minimal and not prompt further U.S. attacks.
The Trump administration is attuned to such concerns. Vice President JD Vance appeared on two prominent television programs June 22 to make the case that Trump isn't pursuing regime change.
"I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East, I understand the concern," Vance said on NBC, adding: "This is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing."
Vance also addressed the contradiction between the president casting himself as a peacemaker while dropping bombs on Iran.
"There's a question about how do you achieve peace, and we believe the way you achieve peace is through strength," Vance said on ABC.
Some conservatives are dismissing concerns that Trump's bombing campaign could fracture the GOP.
Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone told USA TODAY Trump is "far too wise" to get drawn into a "prolonged never-ending war," which he said is the only thing that could divide the MAGA coalition.
Lanhee Chen, a fellow with the conservative Hoover Institution and former adviser to leading GOP figures, said on NBC June 22 that the debate between the the GOP leading up to Trump's strike on Iran has been muted since the bombs fell.
Chen argued that keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons has long been a unifying point for Republicans. If the attack ends up being similar to what Trump did in 2020 when he ordered a drone strike that killed an Iranian general and didn't escalate into broader conflict, then Chen believes Trump is "going to be able to hold the coalition together."
Republican consultant Matt Gorman said on Fox News Sunday that Trump "threaded the needle beautifully."
Gorman, who served as an adviser to GOP U.S. Sen. Tim Scott's 2024 presidential campaign, said the Trump administration has been clear that the Iran attack is "a very limited, targeted, focused operation. They don't want anything long term."
Iran's response could change the Trump administration's calculus, though. The president is gambling he can deliver a targeted strike without getting drawn into a prolonged conflict, something he has pledged to avoid.
"We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end -- and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into," Trump said on Inauguration Day.
That commitment could be tested if Iran hits back and Trump weighs whether to retaliate with more U.S. strikes, which he is promising to do.
"I think the concerning part, at least the part that's open ended, is these additional strikes," Bannon said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

27 minutes ago

• The Independent

NATO chief says Ukraine remains vital at summit despite Zelenskyy's absence from leaders' meeting

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte insisted Monday Ukraine would remain a vital topic at an alliance summit this week despite President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's absence from a leaders' meeting aiming to seal an agreement to boost military spending. 'You will see important language about Ukraine, including connecting the defense spending up to 2035 to Ukraine, and the need for Ukraine to stay in the fight,' Rutte told reporters on the eve of the two-day summit. 'This is a clear commitment by allies.' But the Ukrainian leader hasn't yet publicly confirmed he'll attend a dinner laid on for leaders attending the NATO summit, where his country has had a diplomatic downgrade from previous alliance meetings, even as leaders stress that their militaries need to muscle up to counter the threat of Russia. It's a big change since the summit in Washington last year, when the military alliance's weighty communique included a vow to supply long-term security assistance to Ukraine, and a commitment to back the country 'on its irreversible path' to NATO membership. But with Zelenskyy's relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump still strained since a testy Oval Office meeting earlier this year, finding a place for the Ukrainian leader at NATO's top table has proved a bridge too far. There are other meetings scheduled for Zelenskyy at the summit, but the doors remain shut to the leaders' working meeting Wednesday, even as Rutte acknowledged how heavily the war weighs on the leaders. 'Of course, the most significant and direct threat facing this alliance remains the Russian Federation," he said. "Moscow continues to wage war against Ukraine with the support of North Korea, Iran and China, as well as Belarus.' Rutte stressed that the alliance is underwriting Ukraine's defense to the tune of billions of euros. European allies and Canada, 'will provide over €35 billion of additional security assistance to Ukraine for the year ahead,' he said. 'So in a couple of months, we went from €20 billion to €35 billion. And I think that is great news.' Meanwhile, Moscow bombarded Ukraine with 352 drones and decoys, as well as 11 ballistic missiles and five cruise missiles overnight Monday, Ukraine's air force said, killing at least 14 people and injuring several dozen others.

Daily Mirror

34 minutes ago

• Daily Mirror

'Miscalculated Iran revenge move on US could spark all-out war in Middle East'

As the world braces for an escalation in the Middle East war and hopes US strikes on Iran will not spark a bigger conflict nobody can predict the outcome. An escalation is likely before diplomacy prevails but it is certain that the US attacks will affect the region for years. And that escalation is when world leaders become nervous, desperately trying to hold back the tit-fot-tat march towards all out war and trying to stop other countries joining. Here we examine the possible outcomes of this latest outbreak between the US and Iran, as Israel continues to hammer Israel and threatens revenge against the US. The worst possible outcome is least likely and that involves Iran declaring all-out war on America and Israel. This would happen if the Iranian regime miscalculated and goes too far when it makes a revenge gesture of reply to the United States. The problem is that US President Donald Trump has warned Tehran will be hit by far worse if it does hit US interests so that starts a cycle of escalating violence. I believe if Iran does something below the threshold for war then America may be forced to let it pass and give Iran that off-ramp, saving face and avoiding all-out war. That would involve a much wider conflict, sucking in US allies such as the UK and Europe, leaving Iran to persuade China, North Korea and Russia to come to its aid. The best possible outcome is Iran backing off and starting negotiations again, relative peace even though it means Iran would continue its occasional campaign of terror against America. Extremely careful diplomatic handling could mean Iran makes a gesture of defiance against the US, perhaps hitting a building or a site and not killing anyone. This would play to the nationalists screaming for revenge back home and if no American is killed then Iran may get away with it. But it is unthinkable that Iran will let the US strikes pass without a gesture of violence in return - and precisely what that will be will determine the next few years for the Middle East. There is a tsunami of back-channel negotiations buzzing away in the background between the US, Israel and Iran and the wider region. This may include Iran learning what it can and cannot get away with. Iran could opt to let this costly conflict rumble on for months even though each side is rapidly running out of missiles. I believe this is a possible outcome and will mean escalating Mossad assassinations and other covert operations against Iran, with Tehran hitting back with terror. Despite a huge security clampdown Israel could be badly-hit with terror attacks such as suicide bombs, other terror attacks and even kidnappings. This could involve mass casualty incidents and very easily could spread towards Israel's allikes such as the US and UK. This is perhaps a grey zone war fought in the shadows and would be terrifying for civilians in the west. Iran is very experienced at exporting terror on the orders of the shadowy Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And it is equally good at persuading third parties to act on their behalf.

Reuters

35 minutes ago

• Reuters

India prioritises national interest in US trade talks, trade ministry source says

NEW DELHI, June 23 (Reuters) - Protecting India's interest remains "supreme" in bilateral trade talks with the United States, a senior Indian trade ministry source said on Monday, as New Delhi pushes to finalise a deal before the expiry of the pause on steep reciprocal tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. India is resisting U.S. demands to open its markets for wheat, dairy and corn imports, while offering lower tariffs on high-value U.S. products such as almonds, pistachios and walnuts. An Indian delegation will travel to Washington soon for further negotiations, with the aim of signing an interim trade agreement that could include tariff cuts and enhanced market access for key products from both sides, another trade ministry official told reporters. "The dates for the visit are being finalised," the official said, adding India is keen to conclude a limited deal ahead of the July 9 deadline. However, the official also cautioned that progress hinges on the offers made by both sides. 'For us, in every trade negotiation including with the U.S., national interest is supreme,' the trade ministry source said. India has asked the U.S. to revoke its 10% base tariff and consider steel tariff cuts as part of an interim deal, while offering to address non-tariff barriers and customs rules in the first phase of a broader trade pact likely by autumn of 2025, sources said. Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had agreed in February to conclude a bilateral trade agreement by autumn 2025 and to more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. "The outcome of talks depends on what is offered by both sides," the Indian official said, when asked about the possibility of the deal not materialising by Trump's July 9 deadline.