At times, solutions to international relations challenges arise from the most unlikely sources.
The very faction once seen as incapable of restraining Donald Trump’s impulse to join Benjamin Netanyahu in pursuing war against Iran has now emerged as the essential bulwark — the final safeguard against propelling the United States into a catastrophic conflict in the Middle East — it's MAGA.
As the military confrontation between Israel and Iran intensifies, political tremors are being felt far beyond the Middle East. In the United States, the crisis tests the unity, identity, and future of former President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. This coalition once rallied around the promise of “America First” and the rejection of foreign wars.
With tensions rising, MAGA’s leaders, media voices, and grassroots supporters are sharply divided over whether the US should resist calls for intervention or back Israel in its most dangerous conflict in decades. The debate may redefine American conservatism and shape US foreign policy for years to come.
From the outset, MAGA’s rise was powered by rejecting what its supporters saw as reckless foreign interventions. Trump’s 2016 campaign channeled voter anger at two decades of costly wars that, for many Americans, brought little benefit and enormous cost.
His denunciation of the Iraq war as a “disaster” and his promise to end “stupid wars” forged a bond with working-class voters who felt that Washington’s foreign policy elite had betrayed them. In their view, America First meant securing national interests, rebuilding at home, and avoiding entanglements in distant conflicts.
Today, that promise is under unprecedented strain. As Israel launches strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, and as Iran retaliates with missile salvos, MAGA’s internal divisions have come into stark relief. No figure has amplified the anti-war position more forcefully than Tucker Carlson.
Carlson has framed the crisis as a defining test of MAGA’s principles on his widely watched platform. “If America First means anything, it means not sending our sons to die in wars that have nothing to do with our defense. The best way to prevent this from spiraling into a global conflict is for the United States to stay out of it. We should be a force for peace, not escalation,” he declared.
Carlson’s warning, rooted in deep skepticism of the foreign policy establishment, has become a rallying point for MAGA’s non-interventionist wing. His influence in this debate goes far beyond his broadcasts.
His framing of the crisis has shaped grassroots opinion, empowered lawmakers to resist hawkish calls for escalation, and kept the memory of Iraq and Afghanistan at the forefront of MAGA’s foreign policy conversation.
Yet this time, Trump himself has pushed back. At a campaign event, visibly frustrated by Carlson’s critique, Trump dismissed him as “kooky Carlson” and added: “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.” Trump’s remarks signaled a willingness to break with the movement’s loudest anti-war voices if he believes American interests require a harder line.
This internal clash reflects MAGA’s deepening identity crisis. While Trump has so far avoided direct military engagement, he has left open the possibility of expanded support for Israel, including covert assistance and further measures if Iran’s actions cross his evolving red lines. His words highlight the tension between maintaining MAGA’s anti-war identity and projecting strength to America’s allies and adversaries.
Prominent MAGA figures have reinforced the case for restraint. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene declared, “Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel-Iran war is not America First/MAGA. Americans are very sick and tired of that.” Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist and one of the intellectual architects of MAGA’s populist nationalism, added his stark warning: “Another Middle Eastern war would be deeply divisive for the United States. There is no new intelligence suggesting Iran is nearing the development of a nuclear weapon. If the US gets involved, it will tear this country apart.”
Representative Matt Gaetz has taken concrete steps, co-sponsoring legislation that would bar future presidents from deploying US forces into combat without explicit congressional authorization. “We owe it to the American people to resist the war machine,” Gaetz said. “The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and our job is to make sure no president takes us into conflict without that debate.”
But MAGA is not united. A vocal minority within the movement argues that America First does not mean isolationism but resolute support for allies like Israel at moments of existential threat. Senator Lindsey Graham, along with hawkish conservative commentators, contends that helping Israel dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability is not only a moral imperative but a strategic necessity. For them, failure to act would send a message of weakness that could embolden enemies from Tehran to Beijing. They argue that peace through strength is the truest expression of MAGA’s nationalist ethos.
Vice President JD Vance, a key figure in Trump’s second term and someone who has tried to walk the line between the movement’s factions, has emphasized trust in Trump’s leadership. “The president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military’s focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens. He may decide he needs to take further action, but that decision ultimately belongs to the president,” Vance said, signaling both caution and resolve.
This internal MAGA struggle reflects broader American anxieties. According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll, 53 percent of Trump voters oppose direct US military involvement in the Israel-Iran war, while only 19 percent support it. The gap is even wider among the general public, with 60 percent opposing US intervention and just 16 percent in favor.
These numbers suggest that the anti-war message retains significant power within MAGA and the nation. Conservative pollster Rich Baris recently warned that launching a new foreign war could fracture Trump’s base and damage Republican prospects for years. “Starting new foreign wars never helps a presidency. But it sure as Hell can end one,” Baris said.
The history that shapes this debate runs deep. MAGA was forged in the backlash against the post-9/11 wars, against the neoconservative vision of America as a global enforcer. But MAGA also contains an older Jacksonian tradition of muscular nationalism that views decisive military action as essential when US interests or allies are threatened. The Israel-Iran war has forced these competing instincts into open conflict. Both camps claim the mantle of defending American security — but their strategies could not be more different.
For Carlson and the anti-war wing, restraint is strength, and staying out of a Middle Eastern quagmire is the only way to honor Trump’s original promise to the American people. For the hawkish minority, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel reaffirms America’s credibility and deters greater dangers in the future.
Trump’s public rebuke of Carlson, once one of his closest media allies, signals that his evolving vision of America First may include forceful support for key allies when vital interests are at stake.
As the crisis deepens, MAGA faces a defining test. Can it hold together as a movement rooted in non-interventionist nationalism, or will it be drawn toward the interventionism it once rejected? Trump's choices in the coming weeks will determine MAGA’s future and could redefine what America First means on the world stage for a generation. And with the Middle East on the brink, the world is watching.
Short link: