Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and an ever-expanding list of targets has exposed fundamental disagreements among Americans over support for Israel, the wisdom of direct US participation in the attacks, and the basic direction of American foreign policy. Amid calls from many quarters to stay out of the conflict, including from parts of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base, and equally passionate calls to intervene on Israel’s behalf, President Trump faces tough choices. The decisions he makes are likely to have a major impact on his presidency.
Republicans Back Israel—Mostly
Republican members of Congress have firmly backed Israel’s so-called pre-emptive strike (more accurately called a preventative strike). Leading Senate Republicans, including James Risch (R-ID), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), and Iran hawk Lindsay Graham (R-SC) all voiced strong support, as did House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and others in his caucus.
Graham went farthest of all, telling Margaret Brennan on CBS’s Face the Nation that Trump should “go all in to make sure that when this operation is over, there’s nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program. If that means providing bombs, provide bombs…Whatever bombs. If it means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.” The Wall Street Journal editorial board agreed, urging the administration to consider taking out the hardened Fordow nuclear facility on Israel’s behalf, and other potential targets as necessary: “The U.S. could destroy Iran’s navy, oil and gas production facilities and export terminals…the U.S. has a strategic and moral interest in destroying Iran’s nuclear threat and a rapid Israeli victory.”
One of the few dissenting Republican voices was that of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who pushed back against Graham’s earlier reaction to the Israeli strikes: “game on.” Paul said on NBC that “I don’t consider war to be a game…It’s not the US job to be involved in this war.” Paul probably spoke for many other congressional Republicans who believed Trump when he said he would avoid foreign conflicts and end “forever wars,” and accepted his claim in his second inaugural address that “my proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” Probably fearful of running afoul of the president, however, most Republicans were too timid to speak out.
The MAGA Base: Not So Fast
At least part of Trump’s MAGA base was less inhibited. Right-wing firebrand Charlie Kirk said on his podcast episode titled “Iran is Israel’s War, Not America’s” that US support for Israel might cause “major schism in the MAGA online community.” He added that “the emails are so largely overwhelmingly against Israel doing this, I’d say it’s probably a 99 to one.” Former Trump adviser Steven Bannon said on his own podcast that “the bottom line is we cannot be dragged into, inexorably dragged into, a war on the Eurasian land mass in the Middle East or in Eastern Europe.” Tucker Carlson wrote recently that the United States should “drop Israel,” and activist Jack Posobiec predicted on X that a “direct [US] strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.”
Democrats Fear Bigger War
Democrats were largely unified in their opposition to what they saw as a premature Israeli attack that served to undermine diplomacy and threatened to drag in the United States. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), a member of the SFRC and one of the Democrats’ most prominent voices on foreign policy, said in a statement that Israel’s action means “the region risks spiraling toward a new, deadly conflict. A war between Israel and Iran may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region.” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduced legislation to prevent Trump from entering the war without explicit congressional authorization. Sounding more like Steve Bannon than President Joe Biden, Kaine said that “It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict.”
The loudest Democratic contrarian was, as usual, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). Echoing Senator Graham’s aggressive tone, he posted on X that “our commitment to Israel must be absolute and I fully support this attack…Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel. We must provide whatever is necessary—military, intelligence, weaponry—to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”
Americans Split, But Israel in Trouble
These sharp differences reflect divisions within the American public: in a recent pre-strike survey, a bare plurality (45 percent) said they supported Israeli airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy failed—an important caveat—while 37 percent were opposed and 18 percent were unsure. Overall, US public support for Israel has significantly eroded in recent years. One poll, also undertaken before the attack on Iran, showed that Americans support Israel by the smallest margin ever, 37 percent, to 32 percent who support the Palestinians. And these shifts away from Israel are taking place among both Republican and Democratic voters.
What Is the Endgame?
American public opinion on the issue of a potential direct US attack on Iran can best be described as fluid, and neither Israel nor Trump has much room for maneuver. A wider war or US intervention on Israel’s behalf—something that appears increasingly possible, given the latest signals from Trump, including his early departure from the G7 meeting to deal with the Iran situation—could split both Trump’s base and the American public, and potentially do more serious damage to Israel’s standing among Americans. And if Netanyahu’s evident plan to bring about regime change in Iran succeeds, without any obvious US or Israeli strategy to manage the outcome, the ensuing chaos could overwhelm the region and consume the rest of the Trump presidency. The administration is playing for high stakes, without any apparent idea of the cards in its hand.
The views expressed in this publication are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Arab Center Washington DC, its staff, or its Board of Directors.
Featured image credit: Flickr/Gage Skidmore; Flickr/White House
