MAGA base largely ‘supports' Trump's strikes against Iran
'Brad vs Everyone' podcast host Brad Polumbo asserts that most MAGA supporters would back Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran.
'I would be surprised if many day-to-day Trump voters were anything but supportive of this,' Mr Polumbo said.
'But some ideologically committed and consistent MAGA voices are criticising Trump along those lines because they had the same criticism for past presidents.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
How Iran could hit back after US strike
The US military has a presence at no fewer than 20 bases in the Middle East and the surrounding regions. The majority of these would be within the 2000-kilometre range of Iran's Sejil-2 ballistic missile. American bases in Iraq and Syria would be likely to be first on the hit list, with Tehran then turning its attention to outposts in Arab countries. Any attempt to strike US military facilities in the Middle East is likely to be less effective than the ballistic missile attack on two US bases in Iraq in January 2020 to avenge the assassination of Qassem Soleimani ordered by Trump at the end of his first term. Although the attacks on the two American bases caused no fatalities, partly because Iran had issued a warning, 110 servicemen suffered concussions and other brain injuries because of the force of the impact. So great was the extent of the damage that it may have deterred Trump from retaliating. Washington also has two hulking aircraft carriers, with a third en route, deployed to the Middle East, which would be considered prime targets for Iranian missiles. Targets Israel has proven just how hard ballistic missiles, which are fired up high into the Earth's atmosphere before travelling to the ground at supersonic speeds, can be to intercept, even with what is considered one of the most sophisticated air defence systems in the world. The US military possesses at least two tried and tested surface-to-air systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles – Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence, known as THAAD. Loading And they've slowly been redeploying these systems from Asia to the Middle East for months amid mounting tensions between its ally, Israel, and Iran and its Islamist proxies. America's bases in Iraq – Erbil and Ain al‑Asad air bases – have Patriot batteries positioned, which have been used to fend off militant attacks. American commanders also ordered Patriots to be removed from South Korea and placed at Isa Air Base, Bahrain, and Al Udeid Air Base in recent months. Capacity Of course, mass barrages of ballistic missiles can confuse and overwhelm these systems, as witnessed in both Israel and Ukraine. US servicemen and women will, however, be quietly confident that the Israel Defence Force has significantly reduced Iran's capacity to launch hundreds of missiles at once. Iranian salvos have drastically shrunk in size in recent days. What started as 100-projectile blitzes aimed at Israel has been reduced to just dozens of missiles being fired off at any one time. Iran's production capacity has been significantly eroded, with Israel striking various elements of the supply chain in recent days. Loading Fabian Hoffmann, a missile expert, said: 'Iran is heavily constricted in the missile domain. 'The likelihood that Iran can cause a large amount of damage is very, very slim. 'It could also be counterproductive because if you strike American infrastructure, there will be an even greater cost because you risk the Americans getting involved and really getting involved. So I think that's also a huge political consideration.' Proxies Iran's network of regional proxies was always considered its first line of defence. Hezbollah and Hamas were responsible for keeping Israel's military occupied and unable to strike at the Islamic Republic. The Yemen-based Houthi rebels also distracted the West by targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea. Militants armed by Iran have been responsible for deadly attacks on the US base in Iraq, using one-way attack drones. It's most likely that the Houthi rebels will once again resume targeting American shipping containers travelling through the Red Sea. The militants had briefly paused attacks on American ships after Trump ramped up strikes on the group. In Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah could likely carry out its threat to 'act directly against its [US] interests and bases across the region'. But Israel's decimation of these proxy groups – chiefly Hamas and Hezbollah – in the past year is one saving grace that will comfort the Americans. 'The fact that virtually the only missiles and drones that are launched against Israel right now are coming from Iran is striking,' said Dmitri Alperovitch, chair of the Silverado Policy Accelerator think tank in Washington. Strait of Hormuz Tucked between the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf's western flank lies one of Tehran's most powerful weapons against the West. Nothing hurts a government more than the price of oil, and this narrow stretch of water between Oman and Iran is vital in the global supply. The Islamic Republic has the means to effectively shut down access to the strait, crippling shipping through the region because there are no alternative routes. The threat of its closure is perhaps why the USS Nimitz, one of America's largest aircraft carriers, is being moved into the region. Iran could quite easily close the strait by mining it, repositioning mobile ballistic missile launchers, and using maritime drones. It employed similar tactics during the so-called Tanker Wars of the 1980s – although it never fully succeeded, largely due to UK Royal Navy and later US Navy efforts to escort commercial vessels through the Gulf. This, US officials fear, would keep American naval warships in the Persian Gulf. 'Mine clearance is one of the US Navy's few weaknesses,' Tom Sharpe, a former Royal Navy officer, wrote in The Telegraph this week. For Tehran, closing the strait is one of the most likely ways of bringing the US into the conflict. Trump was happy to expend billions of dollars in strikes against Houthi rebels, the Iranian-backed militia, when they attempted to snarl up Western shipping through the Red Sea. The US president is acutely aware of global oil prices, and with a fifth of global petroleum shipped through Hormuz, any blockages would be likely to lead to him sanctioning some strikes to restore shipping. The other fact that makes this option particularly nuclear for Tehran is that China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, uses the strait for shipping its purchases. This hasn't stopped Iran from meddling with shipping through GPS navigation interference. Two tankers collided and caught fire on the narrow stretch of water after allegedly being impacted by the disruption. US officials have claimed the GPS meddling originated from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, located just north of the strait. Some analysts believe Iran is unlikely to carry out such threats, fearing it would provoke Arab states into the conflict and complete Tehran's global isolation. Oil fields If the Iranian regime believed it faced an existential crisis or the irreversible destruction of its nuclear program, it could play what analysts describe as its 'last big card' by also attacking energy infrastructure in the Gulf. The world got a glimpse of what could be to come in 2019 when drone and missile strikes hit the Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia. Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels claimed responsibility – but both the US and Saudi governments accused Iran of orchestrating the attacks. Loading The attacks temporarily knocked out half of Saudi Arabia's oil production, triggering a sharp spike in global energy prices. Abqaiq, which processes 7 million barrels of crude a day – more than two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's production capacity – would almost certainly be a prime target if Iran followed through on its threats. Other potential targets include oil and LNG terminals in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as oil tankers moving through the region's waters. In May 2019, limpet mines damaged three tankers and a bunkering ship off the coast of Fujairah in the UAE. No one claimed responsibility, but Western officials suspected Iranian frogmen were behind the attacks. Cyber Over the years, Iran and its regional proxies have claimed responsibility for numerous cyberattacks against Israel. They include destroying data, phishing campaigns and information operations. Given the threat poses a danger to both civilian and military worlds, the US government has been appealing for information on Iranian hackers responsible for targeting critical infrastructure. A $US10 million ($15.5 million) reward was posted for details on a group, known as CyberAv3ngers, who US officials have linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
MAGA base largely ‘supports' Trump's strikes against Iran
'Brad vs Everyone' podcast host Brad Polumbo asserts that most MAGA supporters would back Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran. 'I would be surprised if many day-to-day Trump voters were anything but supportive of this,' Mr Polumbo said. 'But some ideologically committed and consistent MAGA voices are criticising Trump along those lines because they had the same criticism for past presidents.'
7NEWS
5 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now
