Share this @internewscast.com
The MAGA movement’s top influencers were divided over bombing Iran until President Donald Trump did just that Saturday night.
Currently, at least for now, the lay leaders within the president’s base seem unified around a stance that avoids criticizing Trump: Direct assaults on Iranian nuclear sites are acceptable, provided American troops aren’t drawn into a third full-scale war halfway around the world in the past 25 years.
“People are not in favor of an escalation that involves deploying ground troops, but this is not comparable to Iraq,” stated Ryan Girdusky, a Republican consultant who worked with a super PAC supporting JD Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign in Ohio. Girdusky anticipates the MAGA base will align with Trump.
Follow live coverage
There is minimal interest, whether at the White House or elsewhere in Washington, in initiating a ground invasion of Iran, a mountainous nation in the Middle East that would be exceptionally challenging to conquer through conventional warfare.
But it’s hardly unusual for the start of hostilities — the airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear-enrichment facilities were the first direct American intervention in a week-old war between Israel and Iran — to create a rally-around-the-flag effect within a president’s party. What’s notable is just how dramatic and speedy the turn has been from dissent to full-throated support.
“Heavy smear campaign going on right now attacking America First Patriots as ‘Isolationists,’” Jack Posobiec, a leading voice in the MAGA movement, posted earlier Saturday, before the bombings. “I hope everyone using this bad persuasion knows that it associate them with the worst Bush-era neocons,” slang for the so-called neoconservative George W. Bush administration officials who pushed for war in Iraq.
Posobiec had previously warned that direct attacks on Iran would “disastrously split the Trump coalition.”
But after the airstrikes, he posted what looked like a sentiment of approval.
“President Trump has clearly signaled, as he has all along, that he opposes a regime change war in Iran,” he wrote. “This is about the nuclear program of Iran which he promised he would end from day one.”
Posobiec was hardly alone among anti-interventionist MAGA figures in holding off on criticizing Trump after what he described as a highly successful mission that “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons.
Steve Bannon, a top adviser in Trump’s first White House and host of the “War Room” podcast, made it clear in a special broadcast Saturday night that he would have preferred for Israel to take the lead in striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. But he stopped short of condemning Trump for sending U.S. forces to do the job.
Instead he gave voice to the doubts some MAGA voters would have about the mission.
“A big question is going to be why Israel did not take the lead and do this. Because right now this is back to the United States,” he said. “Why are we engaging in combat operations in a war that’s a war of choice?”
But he ultimately concluded that Trump would bring the MAGA movement to his own position — perhaps an indication that influencers have more to lose by opposing Trump than he does by using force in Iran.
“There are a lot of MAGA that are not happy about this,” Bannon said. “I believe he will get MAGA on board for all of it. But he’s got to explain exactly and go through this.”
An hour after Trump addressed the nation from the White House, Tucker Carlson, the most prominent anti-strike Trump ally, had said nothing to his 16.4 million followers on X.
But Charlie Kirk, a co-founder of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump coalition of younger conservatives, had abandoned his long-running skepticism about the wisdom of hitting Iran.
“America stands with President Trump,” Kirk wrote on X.
While Democrats pushed back against Trump, over both the wisdom of the strikes and the constitutionality of attacking another sovereign country without either congressional authorization or an imminent threat to the United States, most Republicans voiced approval or met the decision with silence.
One anomaly: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who had been working with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., on a measure designed to prohibit Trump from using force against Iran.
“This is not Constitutional,” Massie wrote on X.
