Can MAGA survive a US war on Iran?

A lot of President Donald Trump's fans seem to believe that America First equals dovish military restraint. But the president could soon lead the country to war against Iran, and that possibility has sparked a civil war within the GOP's MAGA coalition.

The possibility of a new American conflict in the Middle East has "exposed divisions" among Trump's supporters, said Reuters. War opponents like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) want the president to stay out of the war between Israel and Iran over the latter country's nuclear program. American intervention would "tear the country apart," Bannon said to reporters. "We can't have another Iraq." But longtime GOP hawks like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also have the president's ear, said The Hill. Iran and its nuclear program are a "threat to us," Graham said Tuesday.

"The MAGA coalition has turned on itself," said Jonathan Lemire and Isaac Stanley-Becker at The Atlantic. The movement "usually displays remarkable unity" when confronting its critics to the left. But the Israel-Iran war has set off a "vicious debate" about America's potential role, and both sides have "furiously lobbied" the president in recent days.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

'Both sides of the fault line'

Trump's MAGA coalition "won't survive a bunker-buster in Iran," said Andreas Kluth at Bloomberg. Any attack will cause the president to "lose a large and especially zealous part of his America First crowd." It is "telling" that he "appears to be on both sides of the fault line," but he cannot straddle it indefinitely. Trump "really does want to see a more peaceful world," said a former Trump administration official. But he must also be "tempted to seize this opportunity to project the ultimate semblance of strength."

The "isolationist right" thought Trump was a "hero," Dace Potas said at USA Today. But "they were wrong" about him. The president has been "unwavering" about keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and while he might not have "signed off" on Israel's initial strike he has "no problem taking credit regardless." That's a sign Trump "still understands the value" of America's international might "at least in some regards." His "rebuke" of the isolationists is just "smart foreign policy."

'We'll get on board'

If Trump decides to attack Iran "he'll reveal himself to be no different" from the foreign policy establishment he criticized for so long, said political scientist Rajan Menon at The Guardian. But he risks "running afoul of Israel's most fervent American allies" if he does not attack. The problem? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "unnecessarily" put Trump in a bind by taking his country to war. Iran had not attacked Israel "nor was it preparing to." Now that the war has started, though, Trump must make "hard decisions" that could alienate a large chunk of supporters.

It is worth asking if talk of a "MAGA civil war" is merely the "stuff of a Resistance fever dream," said Politico. Even the so-called isolationists seem to have little interest in "seriously taking on the president over this." Bannon said the president's supporters may be divided over Iran "but we'll get on board" with the choice he makes.