Latest news with #Maga
Yahoo
9 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.
Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
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. Domestic disputes 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13 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
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Tucker Carlson confronts Ted Cruz on Iran as Maga rift erupts into public view
Ted Cruz, the US senator from Texas, and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson have clashed over US military involvement in the Middle East, with the latter shouting: 'You don't know anything about Iran!' in a heated interview that exposes a sharp division within Donald Trump's coalition as the president considers joining Israel in attacking Iran. In the confrontation, a short excerpt released ahead of an approximately two-hour interview set to air today, Carlson – an acolyte of the Maga movement which generally argues for American isolationism from foreign wars – challenged Cruz's knowledge of Iran, which the Republican hawk has advocated attacking. Related: Majority of Trump supporters against US military involvement in Israel-Iran conflict, poll finds 'How many people live in Iran, by the way?' Carlson asked. 'I don't know the population at all,' Cruz replied. 'You don't know the population you seek to topple?' Carlson pressed. When Cruz questioned why Iran's population figures mattered – 'Why is it relevant if it's 90 million, or 80 million, or 100 million?' – Carlson pushed further, asking Cruz about the country's ethnic composition. 'They are Persians, and predominantly Shia,' Cruz replied, before Carlson jumped in: 'You don't know anything about Iran!' The exchange escalated when Cruz claimed the US was already conducting military operations. 'We are carrying out military strikes today,' he said, only to then clarify in a follow-up that he meant American support for Israeli strikes rather than direct US action. Related: Iran threatens US with 'irreparable damage' if Trump joins war 'You just said 'we' were,' Carlson responded. '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.' The public spat reflects another fracture within Trump's coalition over whether America should join Israel's escalating conflict with Iran. The president has deployed additional military assets to the Middle East, including refueling tankers and a second carrier group, while considering strikes on Iran's heavily fortified nuclear facilities underground. While Trump's personal authority remains largely unchallenged, the coalition of his supporters faces a serious internal test. Prominent American isolationists – including Carlson, Steve Bannon and the House representative Marjorie Taylor Greene – argue that military intervention would betray Trump's 'America First' principles. Pro-Israel hawks – like Cruz, his fellow senator Tom Cotton and the commentator Mark Levin – contend that it serves American interests to confront a regime that has plotted against Trump. Bannon has warned that Middle East military involvement could distract from domestic priorities like mass deportations. The division has grown so pronounced that Trump publicly rebuked Carlson for his opposition to attacking Iran, posting: 'Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.' Cruz defended himself after the Carlson dust-up, accusing the TV host of 'playing a 'gotcha' on the population of Iran. I declined to play that silly game.' He accused Carlson of attacking Trump and disputed Carlson's claim that Iran was not trying to assassinate Trump. The debate over entering another Middle East war also reflects other divisions within Trump's Maga movement, particularly over immigration policy. But Trump has so far been able to broadly ensure conflicting opinions do not boil over in public. JD Vance – once known to be skeptical of foreign interventions – said the president 'may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment'. Trump's tough talk toward Iran has meanwhile intensified in recent days. On Monday he wrote: 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' and the next day: '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.' Israeli strikes have so far killed at least 585 people in Iran, including 239 civilians, according to a Washington-based human rights group. Iranian retaliation has killed at least 24 Israelis and wounded hundreds more.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US free-speech rights shredded despite Trump vow to be first-amendment champion
A cornerstone of the Maga movement during the Biden administration was to accuse a mixture of the so-called 'woke left' and the justice department of forcing America into the grips of a free speech crisis. Common complaints were that nobody 'can say anything any more' without being canceled or arrested for extremism. In the same breath, Maga broadly described the January 6 insurrection, which killed a police officer, as peaceful, accusing the Democrats of a communist conspiracy. Donald Trump vowed that when he returned to power, he would bring 'retribution'. So far, he hasn't disappointed, with unprecedented crackdowns on his perceived enemies. But experts say the first amendment is measurably under attack in ways it has not been since the presidency of Richard Nixon. A double standard has also emerged: if you protest, criticize, or publicly object to the president's agenda, you're a target. Katherine Jacobsen, the project coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists in the US, Canada, and Caribbean region, said: 'The thing with the first amendment and free speech in general is that you have to respect everyone's rights to say and print what they think is appropriate, versus just cherrypicking opinions and views that you find to be supportive with your own world views.' Cherrypicking is evidently at play, especially for individuals or institutions defying the Trump administration: Arresting and attempting to deport a Columbia University student who peacefully protested the Israeli war in Gaza and revoking the visas of foreign students who engaged in similar activism. Reversing a Biden-era protection prohibiting government officials from obtaining the confidential sourcework of the press. Denying billions in federal money to Harvard. Dismantling the education department and halting funds to schools practising diversity, equity, and inclusion. 'We've spent years listening to various elites crow about the threat that campuses and workplaces pose to conservative speech, only for them to suddenly lose their voices once campuses brought down the hammer on student protests against Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinians,' Ed Ongweso Jr, a senior researcher at Security in Context, told the Guardian. 'Insofar as there is a real threat to free speech, it is from rightwingers interested in using this moment to purge critics and restructure the country and its institutions into forms more hospitable to the cruelty and greed at the heart of their politics.' Nothing, though, has come under more public protest and scrutiny than Trump's recent deployment of 2,000 national guard members and 700 marines to Los Angeles, claiming demonstrators marching against Ice raids there were out of control – even as the LAPD had described those same protests as law-abiding and mostly under control. Running against those actions was one of Trump's first acts in his second presidency – an executive order 'restoring' the first amendment and 'the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without government interference'. But the current president has always and historically favored using the military to stifle public dissent: In 2020, he called on the national guard from multiple states to quell protesters in the Capitol against the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, while privately advising the military to 'just shoot' them. 'It's quite concerning to have a military deployed in being sent to, quote unquote, help with these protests, because they are not trained to work in US open environments to my knowledge and one can only imagine the way that type of situation could snowball very quickly, in a very scary way,' said Jacobsen about the continued deployment of US troops, trained for war, on American soil. 'Journalists aren't going to be able to report more easily, protesters won't be able to express their first amendment rights more easily.' Ongweso agreed, describing the military missions as a ploy, part of a grander plan to silence 'dissidents, journalists, and critics of the administration' to advance the ubiquity of Maga. Among some of the president's most ardent supporters, these protesters and other leftists are not subject to the same standards of freedom of expression. For example, congressman Jim Jordan criticized some of the protesters for waving Mexican flags in solidarity with the many foreign nationals coming from south of the border who are the targets of Ice arrests. 'We fly the American flag in America,' Jordan posted on X, inferring it was indicative of some kind of foreign invasion. But a community note quickly fact checked him: 'Representative Jordan has an Israeli flag outside of his office door.' Other users also quipped that when the insurrectionists stormed the halls of the Capitol, one man was prominently seen carrying a Confederate flag. 'When it comes to what they've done domestically, here at home, this administration has been no friend to freedom of speech,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. 'We've seen the administration attempt to retaliate against major law firms for representing causes that the administration is against and we've seen the administration target universities on a seemingly ideological basis.' Fitzpatrick continued: 'So while they might talk the talk when it comes to free speech, they don't walk the walk.' On Sunday, Trump followed up after his controversial and ill-attended military parade in DC by offering his 'unwavering support' to 'ICE, FBI, DEA, ATF, the Patriots at Pentagon and the State Department' to expand their operations and deployments into New York and Chicago, among other American 'Inner Cities'. Fitzpatrick warned that Trump's degrading protections on the first amendment and using new weapons against public assembly only serves to provide another president with the same powers. While Maga cheer on the national guard, the next Democrat in the White House might target them with the same means established by Trump. 'Every infringement on freedom of speech is a tool that the next administration that you don't like can use in the opposite direction,' said Fitzpatrick.
