MAGA devotees are split over going to war with Iran

EVEN HIS critics admit that Tucker Carlson offered a riveting podcast performance on June 18th when he grilled Senator Ted Cruz about his zeal for bombing Iran. Did Mr Cruz really believe that the Bible’s command to “bless” the nation of Israel required America to join Binyamin Netanyahu’s war? Did Mr Cruz know basic facts such as the population and ethnic make-up of the country whose rulers he wants to overthrow? The Republican senator from Texas shifted uncomfortably, accused Mr Carlson of having an “obsession” with Jews and later dismissed his “gotcha” questions.

The interview made an unusually vivid display of the chasm that has opened up in Trumpworld over foreign policy. The MAGA civil war over whether America should bomb Iran has played out for days on television, right-wing podcasts and social media. Rivals have denounced each other as “fake MAGA”, with a vitriol usually reserved for denunciations of the left. Indeed, the hard left and right echo one another as they accuse Israel of pushing America to war.

For many of MAGA’s self-appointed flame-keepers, of whom Mr Carlson is among the most prominent, “America First” means, above all, keeping America out of forever wars in the Middle East after those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Trump himself, speaking in Riyadh last month, decried the follies of neoconservatives who thought they could bring democracy by military force: “The so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built.”

Mr Trump has vacillated about what America should do and has said publicly that he has not made up his mind. At times he has joined a chorus of Republican grandees and Fox News in threatening American strikes on Iran and even the overthrow of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s clerical regime. “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target […],” Mr Trump posted on his Truth Social network on June 17th. At other times he has promoted diplomacy.

Trumpworld has long been riven between roughly three foreign-policy camps: internationalist hawks on one side, neo-isolationist “restrainers” on the other and, in between, “prioritisers” who think America must focus on Asia to confront China at the expense of commitments in Europe and the Middle East. All have generally deferred to Mr Trump even if his promises to bring peace to war zones have come to naught. Ukraine has been semi-abandoned in its war against Russia and Israel has been given a free hand in its war against Hamas in Gaza. None of these foreign-policy struggles badly strained the MAGA coalition.

The war in Iran is different. For hawks it offers a rare opportunity to settle a bitter account that has been open since Islamist revolutionaries in Tehran took 52 American embassy staff hostage in 1979. For restrainers it re-awakens the ghosts of America’s recent wars, which helped to fuel the populist surge for Mr Trump. What is more, Israel exerts a strong pull among Republicans, especially those of an evangelical bent.

The rift opened in early June, as negotiations between Iran and America to limit Iran’s nuclear programme stalled and Israel prepared for military action. On June 4th Mr Carlson, a former TV commentator dismissed by Fox, took aim at Mark Levin, a current presenter on the network, for going to the White House “lobbying for war with Iran”. Mr Levin fired back against the “shadow government within a government” that seeks to draw Mr Trump towards isolationism.

The row grew louder after Israel attacked Iran on June 13th. Hawks demand that Trump go “all in” to help Israel blast Iranian nuclear sites. Mr Levin posted that “THE IRANIAN REGIME MUST BE DESTROYED.” Restrainers are adamant that America should have no part in the hostilities. Steve Bannon, Mr Trump’s erstwhile chief strategist, accused Israel of trying to “jam” America into a war it could not finish. “Why do we have to clean up your mess?” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congresswoman, posted: “Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA.” Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, joined the fray: “Look, I understand ‘America First’. I don’t understand ‘America Dead’. That’s what these people [Iran’s rulers] want,” he told ABC News.

But it is Mr Carlson, with his fulminations against “warmongers”, who seems to have most irked the president. Mr Trump called the podcaster “kooky”. Now that Mr Trump has opened a two-week window for diplomacy, the restrainers may quiet down. Mr Bannon emerged from lunch with Mr Trump to say all’s well; and the president claims Mr Carlson has apologised. But the feud rages on. Its persistence raises two questions. Will it affect Mr Trump’s decision, and will it undermine his popularity?

Mr Trump controls his party like few other presidents before him. Republicans who have collided with him have either become irrelevant or bowed to his wishes. Ultimately, “America First” is less an ideology than a slogan for whatever Mr Trump chooses. “Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First’, and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that,” he told the Atlantic magazine. “For those people who say they want peace—you can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

His calculations are likely to be more prosaic than ideological. Is there scope for a diplomatic deal? Have Israel’s military successes created an opening for America to strike a decisive but low-risk blow against Iran by, say, dropping a few bunker-buster bombs? The Republican Party will probably fall in line with his decisions.

As for his broader electoral support, the latest weekly YouGov poll conducted for The Economist finds that a majority of Americans view Iran as an enemy and its nuclear programme as a threat. Yet a majority also say America should not get involved in the conflict (the feeling is stronger among Democrats than Republicans).

A decision to bomb Iran would be a war of choice. If Mr Trump scores what looks like an easy victory, without ground forces, he is likely to be hailed as a forceful leader. If he lands the country in a regional quagmire and the price of oil soars, the public verdict will probably be harsh.■