Potential US attack on Iran exposes deep cracks in the Republican Party

U.S. President Donald Trump once boasted that his supporters are so loyal that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not “lose any voters.” That claim may now be put to the test: while the Republican president considers whether to bomb Iran, either in tandem with Israel or alone, his voter base is beginning to show significant cracks. Some support such a strike, but other highly influential voices within the MAGA movement, including his ally Steve Bannon, strongly oppose further foreign intervention.

Trump’s decision to grant himself two weeks to think about it is due to the “substantial chance of negotiations” that “may or may not take place” with Iran during that time, press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated at a news conference Thursday. Regarding the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program — until Israel attacked Iranian military and nuclear targets last week — the spokesperson emphasized that the deal proposed by U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff was “realistic and acceptable within its terms.”

The promises of swift victory if the U.S. were to get involved, and the claim that the local population would welcome the move, are reminiscent of the clumsy invasion of Iraq in 2003. The differences of opinion regarding a potential U.S. attack underscore the difficult balance within a coalition in the Republican Party that banded together to get Trump elected in November, but which is made up of very different factions.

On one side are the anti-interventionists of the MAGA movement, with representatives such as Bannon, TV commentator Tucker Carlson, and Charlie Kirk, who hosts a podcast that is popular with younger Republicans. Carlson lashed out on Tuesday at Senator Ted Cruz, one of the Republicans who advocates for U.S. intervention, asking him how many people live in Iran. Cruz couldn’t answer. “You’re a senator who’s calling for the overthrow of a government, and you don’t know anything about the country,” the former Fox News host shouted at him during an interview for his podcast.

On the other side are the neoconservatives who favor intervention, individuals who in many cases once supported the war in Iraq, and the Republicans whose sole position is to support whatever the president decides.

Another endless war

Isolationists, part of a movement that has grown largely on popular discontent with the so-called “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan at the beginning of the century, are pleading with Trump not to even think about launching another attack that would again involve sending U.S. troops to the Middle East. They are telling the president, who during his election campaign promised to keep the country out of global conflicts, that an attack like the one in Iraq in 2003 could have unforeseen destabilizing consequences and could escalate into another endless war.

Supporters of involvement argue, on the other hand, that it is necessary to support Israel, that Iran and its nuclear program are an existential threat, that Tehran wants to achieve a nuclear bomb and that there will be no other opportunity like this to prevent it and to oust an Islamic regime that has been at odds with Washington since the revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Among those in favor, Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump ally, has declared that Iran represents “an existential threat” to Israel.

The latest leading figure to urge the president to think twice is Bannon, who served as Trump’s right-hand man at the beginning of his first term and has become one of the most influential voices on the Republican far right. “We can’t do this again. We’ll tear the country apart. We can’t have another Iraq,” declared the current host of the War Room podcast.

Isolationists have been following with concern the evolution of a president who came into office promising not to get involved in foreign wars, and whose administration declares that Ukraine is not America’s war, nor does it have anything at stake in places like Syria. In his first months in office, the president tried to pressure Israel into a ceasefire in Gaza and dissuade Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from attacking Iran, which the Israeli politician has been claiming for 30 years is weeks away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Until just a couple of weeks ago, Trump was leaning toward solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear program through diplomatic channels.

With the 60-day deadline he gave Tehran to reach a deal to end to the regime’s uranium enrichment activities now expired, Trump has approved the Israeli bombings, reinforced the U.S. military presence and is seriously considering the possibility of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities with a bomb weighing over 30,000 pounds, so heavy that only powerful B-52 bombers can carry it, and the only one capable of destroying bunkers as deep and well protected as the one at Fordow, south of Tehran, where the Islamic Republic has the base of its nuclear program.

That step could have consequences that would linger for years. Siding with Israel in this case could dynamite Trump’s excellent relations with the Gulf Arab regimes. It could lead to the fall of the Iranian regime, and it remains unclear whether there’s anything that could replace it that wouldn’t lead to chaos. It could affect his plans to impose widespread tariffs. And it could have an impact on the war in Ukraine, where Washington continues to insist it seeks a ceasefire as soon as possible.

So far, Trump maintains that nobody knows what he will ultimately decide. “I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I’m going to do,” he declared Wednesday.

“America First”

Bannon isn’t the only one within the MAGA movement who has expressed doubts about the wisdom of this step. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene, from the far-right wing of the Republican Party and a regular supporter of her leader’s every idea, declared that “a war in the Middle East would take America back 20 years” and would “fracture” Trump’s support across the country. On social media, she also said that “anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA.”

Trump has so far downplayed the apparent disagreements among his base. “My supporters are more in love with me today, and I’m more in love with them, more than they even were at election time where we had a total landslide,” he said Wednesday. Regarding the possibility of an attack, he clarified: “I only want one thing: Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.”

But he also acknowledged that some of his supporters aren’t “very happy right now.” Given the apparent internal disagreements, the White House has reached out to some of the most influential voices against a possible attack to urge restraint, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

A poll by The Washington Post on Wednesday showed that 45% of Americans oppose a military strike, while 25% support it. Another 30% are unsure. Two-thirds of Democrats reject bombing Iran, but Republicans are more divided: 47% support the idea, compared to 24% who condemn it and 29% who are unsure.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition