Iran air strikes: Republicans split over support for Trump and another ‘foreign war'

After returning early from the G7 summit in Canada, Donald Trump met with his national security team to be briefed on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. It became clear that Trump was considering direct US military support for the Israelis.
This has the potential to cause a split among the president's supporters between the Republican hawks (traditional interventionists) on one side and the Maga isolationists on the other.
During his three presidential campaigns, Trump condemned former presidents for leading America into 'ridiculous endless wars'. This isolationist tilt won him plaudits with his base of those who supported him for his populist promises to 'make America great again' (Maga).
In their work on US attitudes to foreign policy and US overseas involvement, Elaine Kamarck and Jordan Muchnick of the Brookings Institution – a non-profit research organisation in Washington – looked at a range of evidence in 2023.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
They found Republicans supporting less global involvement from the US had increased from 40% to 54% from 2004 to 2017. At that time only 16% of voters supported increasing US troop presence abroad, and 40% wanted a decrease, they found. They related this change in attitudes to Trump's foreign policy position.
Fast forward to his second term, and many in the Maga camp are fiercely opposed to Trump's current posturing about leading the US into another conflict in the Middle East. Over the past few days the White House has doubled down on the line that Trump keeps repeating: 'Iran can not have a nuclear weapon'.
As Trump edges closer to committing the US to joining Israel in air strikes on Iran, Steve Bannon, a staunch Trump ally, argued that allowing the 'deep state' to drive the US into conflict with Iran would 'blow up' the coalition of Trump support.
Meanwhile, Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson denounced those Republicans supporting action against Iran as 'warmongers' and said they were encouraging the president to drag the US into a war.
Congresswoman Majorie Taylor Greene, in an unusual break with Trump, openly criticised the president's stance on the Israel-Iran conflict, writing on X: 'Foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.'
Other prominent Republican senators, including Josh Hawley and Rand Paul, have urged the president to avoid US involvement in an offensive against Iran.
Another Republican congressman, Thomas Massie, has gone even further. He has joined with a coalition of Democrats in filing a House resolution under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which would seek to prevent Trump from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities' with Iran without Congressional consent.
These Republicans may believe their views are popular with their electoral base. In an Economist/YouGov poll in June 2025, 53% of Republicans stated that they did not think the US military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
But Donald Trump does seem to enjoy widespread support in the US for his position that the US cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. According to CNN data analysis, 83% of Republicans, 79% independents, and 79% of Democrats, agree with the president's position on this issue. This slightly confusing split suggests there could be US voter support for air strikes, but it's clear there would not be that same support for troops on the ground.
IranInfogram
Resistance from ultra-Trump die-hards, however, might put them on the wrong side of the president in the long-term. Greg Sargent, a writer at The New Republic magazine, believes that, 'people become enemies of Trump not when they substantively work against some principle he supposedly holds dear, but rather when they publicly criticize him … or become an inconvenience in any way'.
So why is Trump, to the dismay of many from within the Maga faithful, seemingly abandoning the anti-war tenet of his 'America first' doctrine? Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest magazine, thinks that 'now that Israel's assault on Iran appears to be successful, Trump wants in on the action'.
The president has several prominent Republican hawks urging him to do exactly that, and order the US Air Force to deploy their 'bunker-buster bombs'' to destroy Iran's underground arsenals. One of these is Senator Lindsey Graham.
Earlier this week on Fox News, he told Trump to be "all in … in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.'
Former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is also advocating US military action. He told CNN: 'What's happening here is some of the isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are distressed we may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians,' adding that its 'been kind of a bad week for the isolationists' in the party.
The same Economist/YouGov poll mentioned earlier showed that the stance taken by these Republicans – that Iran poses a threat to the US – is a position shared by a majority of GOP voters, with 69% viewing Iran as either an immediate and serious threat to the US, or at least somewhat of a serious threat.
Some believe that Trump's evolving attitude towards American military involvement in the worsening crisis in the Middle East, however, is not a volte-face on isolationism, or an ideological pivot to the virtues of attacking Iran. Ross Douthat of the New York Times has observed that Trump 'has never been a principled noninterventionist' and that 'his deal-making style has always involved the threat of force as a crucial bargaining chip'.
It is always difficult to fully determine what Trump's foreign policy doctrine actually is. It is useful, however, to reflect on some of the president's overseas actions from his first term.
In April 2018, following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the forces of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in a Damascus suburb, Trump ordered US air strikes in retaliation for what he called an 'evil and despicable attack' that left 'mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air'.
This led the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, to describe Trump as 'something wholly unique in the history of the presidency: an isolationist interventionist'.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Richard Hargy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

35 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Federal judge blocks Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House. The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard's ability to host foreign students while the case is decided, but it falls short of resolving all of Harvard's legal hurdles to hosting international students. Notably, Burroughs said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency abruptly withdrew the school's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students — about a quarter of its total enrollment — to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard. The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House's demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Burroughs temporarily had halted the government's action hours after Harvard sued. Less than two weeks later, in early June, President Donald Trump tried a new strategy. He issued a proclamation to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move, saying the president was attempting an end-run around the temporary court order. Burroughs temporarily blocked Trump's proclamation as well. That emergency block remains in effect, and Burroughs did not address the proclamation in her order Friday. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard said Friday in an email to international students. 'Our Schools will continue to make contingency plans toward ensuring that our international students and scholars can pursue their academic work to the fullest extent possible, should there be a change to student visa eligibility or their ability to enroll at Harvard.' Students in limbo The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America's oldest and wealthiest university. The Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion,' the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said. Still, admissions consultants and students have indicated most current and prospective Harvard scholars are holding out hope they'll be able to attend the university. For one prospective graduate student, an admission to Harvard's Graduate School of Education had rescued her educational dreams. Huang, who asked to be identified only by her surname for fear of being targeted, had seen her original doctoral offer at Vanderbilt University rescinded after federal cuts to research and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Harvard stepped in a few weeks later with a scholarship she couldn't refuse. She rushed to schedule her visa interview in Beijing. More than a month after the appointment, despite court orders against the Trump administration's policies, she still hasn't heard back. 'Your personal effort and capability means nothing in this era,' Huang said in a social media post. 'Why does it have to be so hard to go to school?' An ongoing battle Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after the university rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. On Friday, the president said in a post on Truth Social that the administration has been working with Harvard to address 'their largescale improprieties" and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' Trump's post said. Trump's administration first targeted Harvard's international students in April. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world's top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard's reputation as a global research hub. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit said. The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong. Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. ___ Collin Binkley has covered Harvard for nearly a decade — most of the time living half a mile from campus. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Collin Binkley And Albee Zhang, The Associated Press

Fox News

36 minutes ago

• Fox News

Issa floats constitutional amendment to let Congress, SCOTUS remove president after Biden health 'cover-up'

Rep. Darrell Issa on Friday suggested that the House should consider taking up a constitutional amendment to make it easier to remove a president who is unable to perform the job in response to the alleged cover-up of former President Joe Biden's declining mental state. Issa, R-Calif., who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that actions taken by Biden administration officials to keep Americans in the dark about his health show that the provisions in the 25th Amendment may be insufficient. That amendment allows the Vice President and the Cabinet to remove a president from his role if he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." "The initiation was always intended to be the vice president and the cabinet based on the assumption that they would take their oath and their observation seriously and that they were closest to the president to know if that event was needed," Issa told Fox News. "It now looks as though their impartiality can be questioned." Issa added: "If that's the case, the other two branches need to be brought in in some way into the process of asserting that the president may be unable to perform his duties and determining that in a fair and, if necessary, public way." The other two branches in this case would likely be Congress and the Supreme Court. Issa's comments come as the House Oversight Committee is set to interview three Biden administration officials next week about the former president's decline. Former Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden will meet with the committee Tuesday. Former Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the First Lady Anthony Bernthal will meet with the committee Thursday. Former White House Physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor will testify under subpoena on Friday. The committee also has interviews scheduled with former administration officials Annie Tomasini and Ashley Williams. And it's seeking interviews with several officials in the Biden inner circle, including former Chief of Staff Ron Klain and former Senior Advisor to the President for Communications Anita Dunn. Also among the questions investigators will have is whether any Biden officials used the autopen to authorize executive actions without the president's permission. The results of that investigation, according to Issa, could help inform exactly how to write this potential constitutional amendment. "What Chairman Comer is doing is extremely important because he's basically doing the fact-finding for the Judiciary Committee, which is going to undoubtedly take up a possible amendment to the 25th Amendment," Issa said. There is a very high threshold to amend the Constitution – a two-thirds vote in each chamber and ratification by three-quarters of states. So, if an amendment does materialize from the Judiciary Committee, it would face a tough road to make it through Congress, even with unified Republican control. But Issa says it's worth making an effort to improve the system. "Since it didn't work, we have to ask, is there another way to make it work better in the future?" he asked.

Washington Post

37 minutes ago

• Washington Post

Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran and Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop'

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard , was 'wrong' when she previously said that the U.S. believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, and he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to negotiate a possible ceasefire.