Latest news with #AmericaFirst
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Has Trump ‘chickened out' on Iran? Five reasons for his two-week delay
On Tuesday evening, Donald Trump appeared poised to join Israel's war against Iran. Having left the G7 summit in Canada early, he convened an emergency meeting of his national security advisers. JD Vance, his vice-president and a staunch opponent of foreign military entanglements, signalled that the president was contemplating action. Mr Trump issued a series of increasingly bellicose warnings, demanding Iran's 'unconditional surrender'. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' he wrote in a social media post. Yet within 48 hours, the president had pulled back. To some observers of US politics, this will seem like another instance of Mr Trump living up to his 'Taco' instincts – 'Trump Always Chickens Out', the acronym that so palpably infuriates him. There are, however, several plausible reasons for delay. Mr Trump's flirtation with war has sharply divided his base. Maga loyalists, whose foreign policy instincts are overwhelmingly isolationist, are aghast at the prospect of their standard-bearer dragging them into a new conflict, especially after campaigning so forcefully against just such adventurism. 'Anyone slobbering for the US to become involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/Maga,' Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Mr Trump's most ardent Congressional allies, posted on social media. The prospect of US military action in the Middle East has thrown into relief the deep ideological rift on the American right, one that sets traditional hawks like Senator Lindsey Graham, who still see the US as the world's policeman, against the populist wing led by figures like Steve Bannon, who reject the interventionism that characterised the George W. Bush era. Mr Bannon and his allies have long argued that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were catastrophic, costly mistakes that drained US power and served global rather than national interests. By championing an 'America-first ideology', Mr Trump has echoed that view, casting himself as a president intent on disengaging from distant conflicts that do not directly threaten the US homeland. He now faces a delicate balancing act. Aligning too closely with Israel risks him being recast – by his own movement – as a 'neocon', indistinguishable from the foreign policy establishment he once vowed to upend. But appearing to abandon Israel, America's most cherished ally, carries its own political perils. Beyond the politics, strategic considerations are undoubtedly playing a major role – factors presumably impressed upon the president by cooler heads at the Pentagon. A brief delay allows more time to position US offensive assets. The USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is already in the Arabian Sea, while the Nimitz group is en route from the Indo-Pacific. Waiting will enable full integration with other US forces in the region. With more than 40,000 US troops stationed across 19 sites in the Middle East, Washington will want to bolster its defences against potential Iranian retaliation. The US has upgraded air defences in the region over the past five years, but may still choose to deploy additional Patriot batteries or THAAD systems. Allowing more time for Israel to further degrade Iranian defences may also be a consideration, particularly around the deeply buried enrichment facility of Fordow, likely to be the prime US target. Mr Trump will be wary of the political and military fallout if a prized B-2 bomber were to be shot down. The more Israel weakens Tehran's defensive capabilities, the less risky the operation becomes for US forces. Although Mr Trump has long opposed Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, he fundamentally sees this as Israel's war. In his calculus, the onus is therefore on the Israel Defence Forces to clear the path as much as possible. If Fordow is to be destroyed from the air, only the US can do so using its 30,000-lb GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator' bunker busters, which can only be deployed by the B-2. But Washington may expect Israel to lead in neutralising peripheral threats by knocking out radar sites, missile batteries, and command-and-control infrastructure that could complicate a US strike. American officials may also be waiting to see whether Israel can carry out alternative forms of action against Fordow. Covert sabotage remains an option. Israel could target ventilation systems or access tunnels to seal the site or attempt to strike the plant's power supplies, a move that could cause its delicate centrifuge cascades to spin out of control. A pause also offers benefits from an intelligence-gathering perspective. The US can use the window to monitor how Iran is repositioning its military assets, particularly its integrated air defence network and ballistic missile units. Analysts will also be watching to see how effectively Iran's military command is functioning in the wake of Israel's campaign of targeted assassinations against senior generals. Diplomatically, voices at the State Department may have counselled restraint as well. There are indications that Iran, while rejecting the demand for 'unconditional surrender', is signalling interest in a negotiated off-ramp. A short pause gives time for back-channel diplomacy to take place – possibly with Europe, and particularly France, playing a role in mediation. Perhaps most importantly, the delay gives Mr Trump an opportunity to reassert some control over Iran policy – an agenda increasingly driven by Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, appears to have calculated that the US president would eventually feel compelled to join his campaign and deliver the finishing blow to Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Had Mr Trump launched strikes immediately, he risked the perception that the US was being led by its ally on one of the most consequential national security decisions of his presidency. While that impression may prove difficult to erase entirely, the delay buys Mr Trump the space to project greater independence should he ultimately decide to enter the war in a fortnight's time. There is one other possibility that cannot be discounted. The two-week delay could be a feint, designed to catch Iran off guard, only for the US to strike well before the deadline. With a president as unpredictable as Mr Trump, anything, after all, is possible.
The Journal
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Journal
The Israel-Iran conflict is splitting Trump's MAGA movement in two
Ted Cruz on Iran. Full interview tomorrow. — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 18, 2025 AS WAR CLOUDS gather over the Middle East and Donald Trump edges closer to authorising military strikes, an objector has emerged from inside his own ranks. Meet the lead dissenting voice: Tucker Carlson. You may have come across footage of a tense exchange this week between two of Trump's most loyal allies – Republican Senator Ted Cruz and right-wing broadcaster Tucker Carlson – clashing over the situation in Israel and Iran. In a fiery interview, Carlson grilled Cruz on why the United States, and Trump in particular, are flirting with the idea of striking Iran in support of Israel. Cruz defended the president, citing biblical obligation and national security threats. Iran, he argued, is 'trying to murder Donald Trump'. Carlson, on the other hand, rejected both the religious framing and the geopolitical justification, labelling the strikes a mistake and warning that Trump's foreign policy credibility hangs in the balance. The exchange revealed a widening schism within the MAGA movement — between those who support Trump's 'America First' pledge to end 'forever wars', and those who see Iran as a pressing threat to US and Israeli security that must be addressed militarily. MAGA civil war? Trump's supporters are no longer unified on foreign policy. At its core, the MAGA divide is over what 'America First' actually means. For some, it's about rejecting foreign entanglements and endless wars. For others, it includes projecting strength abroad and standing by allies like Israel, especially against common enemies like Iran. Trump, who once decried the invasion of Iraq as 'the worst decision ever made,' now flirts with another conflict in the region . 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he said cryptically when asked whether the US would join Israeli efforts to hit Iranian nuclear sites. A destroyed building in Tehran, Iran. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo Trump's comments shook his base, exposing a growing divide. On one side are traditional conservatives like Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, who believe the US must act to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. 'President Trump understands the threat the ayatollah presents to us, not just Israel,' Graham said, voicing confidence that Trump would ultimately side with Israeli forces. On the other side are populist nationalists like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who see any military action as a betrayal of Trump's promise to avoid foreign wars. 'Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel-Iran war is not America First/MAGA,' Greene wrote on X. 'We are sick and tired of foreign wars.' Even Trump's own vice-president, JD Vance, long sceptical of foreign intervention, has attempted to bridge the gap, insisting that Trump 'is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals.' But the balancing act is proving more difficult as rhetoric escalates and the conflict enters its second week. Advertisement Online MAGA resistance The Trump backlash hasn't been limited to Capitol Hill. Trump's broad online coalition is now fractured, with many influencers who strongly supported the president taking sharply different stances. Tucker Carlson's public opposition drew a rebuke from Trump, who called him 'kooky'. That, in turn, sparked defence from various pro-Trump voices. Right wing content creator Candace Owens called the moment 'unbelievable', arguing that Trump had 'completely fractured his base.' Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones warned that backing war against Iran was 'the stuff nightmares are made of.' Still, some in the MAGA media ecosystem have remained firmly pro-Trump. Far-right influencer Charlie Kirk declared his 'full and complete trust' in Trump's judgement, while activist Laura Loomer reminded followers that 'America First is whatever President Trump says it is.' Others, like Jack Posobiec, have tried to hold the movement together, warning that 'regime change war would break up the MAGA coalition', which he suggested the neoconservatives are counting on. Voters say no to foreign wars US polling reflects the internal disunity. A YouGov/Economist survey found 60% of Americans (including a majority of Trump supporters) oppose US military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. In an Echelon Insights poll, 45% of voters said they supported Israel's strikes on Iran, while 35%were opposed. Asked what role the US should play, only 8% said that they would favour joining Israel in military attacks, while 41% said they want America to stay completely out. The message is clear: Trump's voters are worried about another foreign war. Even Trump's own intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, has voiced caution. In recent congressional testimony, she acknowledged that Iran's uranium enrichment was at a record high, but said there was no evidence they were building a nuclear weapon. She later warned that the 'political elite' was 'carelessly fomenting fear' that risked global catastrophe, a stance which reportedly infuriated Trump. Some Republicans such as Congressman Thomas Massie have even joined with Democrats to try to block any unauthorised military action. 'This is not our war,' Massie posted. 'Congress must decide such matters.' What happens next? For now, the future of US involvement remains uncertain. Trump has insisted that Iran 'cannot have a nuclear weapon,' while hinting at further escalation, posting ominously that the US knows 'exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding.' Whether Trump ultimately strikes or holds back, the political damage may already be done. The Iran-Israel conflict has laid bare ideological tensions in the MAGA movement that have simmered beneath the surface for years. In the words of Carlson: 'What happens next will define Donald Trump's presidency.' Perhaps it will reshape his movement altogether. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Bannon urges Trump to avoid war with Iran, backs 'America First' stance
Former White House strategist Steve Bannon was seen at the White House on Thursday, where he had lunch with US President Donald Trump, according to a senior official. The meeting had been scheduled weeks ago but was delayed after Bannon fell ill with the flu. Despite a brief rift following his 2017 departure, Bannon has remained one of Trump's most loyal outside advisers. Speaking at a Christian Science Monitor event, Bannon voiced strong opposition to US involvement in a conflict with Iran. 'My mantra right now: The Israelis have to finish what they started,' he said. 'We can't do this again. We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq.' He has echoed this position on his 'War Room' podcast, reflecting a segment of the MAGA movement urging Trump to steer clear of war, arguing such a move contradicts his 'America First' foreign policy.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Why did Tucker Carlson's clash with Ted Cruz over Iran go viral?
A combative interview between TV host Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz has highlighted the divide within the Maga coalition. The two sparred over US involvement in Israel's strikes on Iran, basic facts about the country and Trump's foreign policy. The clash revealed sharp divisions on military intervention and America's future role in the region read more (Left) US Senator Ted Cruz speaks during the AmericaFest 2024 conference in Phoenix, Arizona, US, December 22, 2024; (right) Tucker Carlson speaks during a rally at Madison Square Garden, in New York, US, October 27, 2024. File Images/Reuters A viral interview between United States Senator Ted Cruz and conservative broadcaster Tucker Carlson has taken centre stage as it revealed growing internal divisions in Donald Trump's Republican coalition over potential US military involvement in Israel's escalating confrontation with Iran. The widely circulated conversation, now published in full, has since dominated headlines and now social media. The Cruz-Carlson exchange, recorded on Carlson's podcast earlier in the week, is being described by both participants as unusually combative. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Carlson, a prominent figure in the 'America First' wing of the conservative movement, directly challenged Cruz, one of the Republican Party's leading national security hawks, over his advocacy for US support in Israel's bombing campaign on Iranian targets. Carlson grills Cruz over Iran knowledge The confrontation began with Carlson questioning Cruz about his knowledge of Iran — starting with a seemingly simple query: the country's population. When Cruz admitted, 'I don't know the population at all,' Carlson responded sharply: 'You don't know the population you seek to topple?' Carlson then asked about the country's ethnic composition. Cruz replied, 'They are Persians, and predominantly Shia.' Carlson followed up with: 'You don't know anything about Iran!' At one point, Cruz attempted to deflect the line of questioning by saying, 'OK, this is cute… OK, I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran.' Carlson continued pressing the senator, arguing that knowing such basic facts was essential if Cruz was advocating for regime change or US intervention. Cruz dismissed the line of questioning later as a 'silly game,' accusing Carlson of attempting a 'gotcha' moment. Senator Ted Cruz demands regime change in Iran. He's not interested in the details. (0:00) Why Does Cruz Want Regime Change in Iran? (6:28) Is the US Currently Acting in Its Own Best Interest? (7:49) Was Regime Change in Syria Beneficial to the US? (12:31) Was the Iraq War a… — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 18, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In a follow-up podcast episode, Cruz said, 'I agree with Tucker on 80 percent of the issues,' but added that 'on foreign policy, Tucker has gone bat-crap crazy. He's gone off the rails.' The tension rose further when Cruz stated during the interview, 'We are carrying out military strikes today.' Carlson interrupted, pointing out that Cruz and other officials had previously stated that Israel was leading the strikes. 'You said Israel was,' Carlson noted. Cruz responded: 'Right, with our help. I said 'we' — Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.' Carlson then remarked, 'This is high stakes; you're a senator. If you're saying the United States government is at war with Iran right now, people are listening.' Division over Trump's foreign policy vision The Cruz-Carlson exchange is only the most visible episode in a broader internal Republican debate that has intensified as Israel's offensive in Iran accelerates. Israeli forces, in recent days, have struck key nuclear infrastructure sites at Natanz and Isfahan, though the underground Fordo facility remains out of reach without US bunker-busting capabilities. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The question now is whether the US will directly join in the campaign. The Trump administration has been sending mixed signals. Trump has posted increasingly provocative statements on his social platform, calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender' and suggesting the US might assassinate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, writing, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He also asserted that the US had assumed control over Iranian airspace, writing: 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' Cruz echoed this sentiment in the Carlson interview, but Carlson seized on the wording of 'we,' pressing whether this implied direct US military action. The disagreement reflects the two ideological wings of the pro-Trump right. One faction, represented by Cruz, US Senator Tom Cotton, and media voices like Mark Levin, supports assertive action against Iran, arguing that the Islamic Republic's alleged assassination plots against Trump and nuclear ambitions pose a direct threat to American security. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The other faction, which includes Carlson, former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, warns that interventionist policies betray the 'America First' mandate Trump ran on in 2016 and again in 2024. Bannon has repeatedly warned that military escalation in the region could derail domestic objectives such as large-scale deportation programs, while Greene said that Carlson 'unapologetically believes the same things I do.' She added, 'Foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' Carlson-Trump tensions flare, then cool Carlson's opposition to American involvement has also placed him in direct conflict with Trump himself. On June 13, Carlson posted that the divide was now between 'warmongers and peacemakers,' and named Republicans and donors such as Sean Hannity, Rupert Murdoch, Ike Perlmutter, and Miriam Adelson as individuals 'calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes.' Trump initially responded dismissively at the recent G7 Summit in Canada, telling reporters, 'Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.' Later, on Truth Social, Trump escalated his rhetoric, saying: 'Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CANNOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, by Wednesday, Trump revealed to reporters in the Oval Office that Carlson had called him and apologised for his tone. 'He called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that,' Trump said. He pointed out that Carlson, like himself, did not want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, adding, 'You may have to fight… maybe it will end very quickly.' Despite the personal thaw, the strategic divide remains. Carlson reiterated his concerns on Steve Bannon's podcast The War Room, stating that further military involvement could lead to 'the end of the American empire.' Trump, by contrast, has deployed refuelling tankers, a second carrier group, and has continued to hint at deeper engagement. Civilian toll of the Israel-Iran conflict till now As political figures clash in Washington, the human cost of the conflict continues to rise. According to a Washington-based human rights group, Israeli airstrikes have resulted in at least 585 deaths in Iran, including 239 civilians. In retaliation, Iranian strikes have killed at least 24 Israelis and left hundreds injured. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Cruz has maintained that the regime in Tehran presents a danger to the US, citing previous threats to assassinate Trump, which Carlson disputed during their interview. Cruz later said on social media that Carlson had 'attacked' the US president and the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC during their sit-down. While Trump's leadership remains unchallenged within the GOP, the disagreement over whether to enter another conflict in West Asia is going to be a flashpoint in the future. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?
As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'
