Trump's military attack on Iran reveals split among Maga diehards
Saturday's US strikes on Iran provoked conflicting reactions from isolationist Republicans who support Donald Trump's 'Make America great again' (Maga) movement, catching them – like many Democrats – between supporting efforts against nuclear proliferation and opposing American intervention in foreign conflicts.
The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – a loyalist to the president – reacted to the strikes by urging those in the US to pray that terrorists do not attack 'our homeland' in retaliation.
'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our US troops and Americans in the Middle East,' Greene wrote on X.
But Greene had not been so supportive in a message posted 30 minutes before Trump announced news of the surprise strikes on Saturday evening.
Related: Democrats say they were left in dark about plans for US strikes on Iran
In that message, Greene wrote: 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if [its prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.'
The former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, who has been an opponent of US military intervention in Iran, hit out at the president for thanking Netanyahu in a national address shortly after the strikes.
Speaking on his War Room web show, Bannon said, 'It hasn't been lost … that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank.'
That came amid ongoing speculation that Trump's decision to attack Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday stemmed from information that Iran was close to developing a weapon – as supplied by Israeli, and not US, intelligence sources. The issue created an apparent split between Trump and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
The president recently criticized Gabbard and the US intelligence community, saying they were 'wrong' in assessing that Iran had not taken the political step of ordering a bomb. Gabbard has denied that she and Trump were not on the same page.
Nonetheless, Bannon continued his criticism of the strikes, saying: 'I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck.'
The former White House adviser also criticized Trump for leaving open the possibility of further US strikes if Iran fails to capitulate to US demands. 'I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of Maga wanted to hear,' he said. 'It sounded … very open-ended.'
Days earlier, amid signs of a Maga rebellion against the administration's increasingly hawkish stance on Iran, Bannon told an audience in Washington that bitterness over the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a driving force for Trump's first presidential victory. 'One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said.
Bannon, though, said 'the Maga movement will back Trump' despite its opposition to military interventions.
But there are now signs that the Maga 'America first' isolationist position may be more amenable to limited airstrikes. The administration has stressed that Saturday's raids only targeted Iran's nuclear enrichment and not manufacturing locations, population centers or economic assets, including the oil terminal at Karg island.
Related: Cheering support and instant condemnation: US lawmakers respond to attack on Iran
The far-right influencer Charlie Kirk had warned of a Maga divide over Iran, saying 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.'
Yet on Sunday, Kirk reposted a clip of an interview with JD Vance on Meet the Press in which the vice-president praised the B-2 pilots from Missouri who carried out the previous day's bombing.
'They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine, and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East,' Vance said in the clip. 'Whatever our politics, we should be proud of what these guys accomplished.'
In that interview, Vance suggested Trump had 'probably' decided by mid-May that the diplomatic process with Iran was 'not going anywhere'. But Vance refused to be drawn on when precisely Trump approved the strike, saying it probably came 'over time'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
8 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Bloomberg
13 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
What's Next After the Initial Fallout from US Strikes on Iran
What's next? The unprecedented US airstrikes on Iran have set traders and governments worldwide on edge, as the Islamic Republic warns of retaliation and Israel shows no sign of letting up in its assault. Asian currencies and stocks fell, European stock futures declined while oil advanced, then erased gains, after Washington struck Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend. China and Pakistan were quick to condemn — even though China hasn't yet offered substantial assistance to Tehran besides rhetorical support and Pakistan is at the same time taking steps to build stronger ties with the White House. The US State Department issued a ' Worldwide Caution ' alert for Americans. More critically, President Donald Trump's decision to deploy bunker-busting bombs — in Washington's first direct military action against Iran after decades of hostility — has pushed the Middle East into uncharted territory. Did the end justify the means? While the US attacks have set back Iran's nuclear ambitions and dealt its clerical regime a humiliating blow, the program hasn't been completely destroyed. The move may ultimately lead Tehran to end international monitoring of its nuclear program and consider going ahead to develop a bomb. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't been seen in public in 11 days but remains in control. Even as diplomatic allies Russia and China have stayed on the sidelines and its network of armed proxies in the region remains weakened, Tehran still has ways to inflict pain on the US as it plans its retaliation. Two supertankers, each capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude, U-turned in the Strait of Hormuz after the US airstrikes on Iran raised the risk of a response that would ensnare commercial shipping in the region, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The two empty freighters then sailed south, away from the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The turning oil carriers offer the first signs of re-routing, something that oil traders will scrutinize. Any disruption to traffic through the strait, a major artery for global crude and natural gas, raises the specter of a spike in energy prices. That's bad news for Asia, which buys more than four-fifths of all the crude produced in the Middle East, 90% of which goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
CNN team witnesses Israeli airstrikes in Tehran
Israeli airstrikes have rocked the north of Tehran on Monday. CNN's Frederik Pleitgen shows the aftermath of the attack.
