The cracks in MAGA: the American right is divided over the Middle East

by Nasim Ahmed

( Middle East Monitor ) – Donald Trump’s return to the White House marked a new chapter in US politics, but it also exposed a growing split within the coalition that brought him back to power. The ideological fault line runs deep, cutting through the heart of the Republican Party’s foreign policy, particularly over the Middle East and the question of Palestine. Trump’s re-election may have rejuvenated his America First agenda, but it has also thrown into sharp relief the tensions between neoconservatives and isolationists within the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement.

Neoconservatives have dominated Republican foreign policy for decades. Their “Israel first” agenda, focused on interventionist wars, regime change and unwavering support for the occupation state, has long been the unchallenged orthodoxy in Washington. But the rise of Trump’s brand of nationalism — rooted in scepticism of foreign entanglements and a focus on domestic renewal — has unsettled their dominance. Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in debates over America’s role in the Middle East. On one side are the hawks, who see the region as a strategic battleground for US power and a test of loyalty to Israel. On the other are the isolationists, who argue that decades of wars have drained America’s resources and moral authority.

Trump’s recent actions have only deepened the divide.

He has already revoked security clearances for several high-profile figures associated with neoconservative policies, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former National Security advisor John Bolton. The move, ostensibly framed as part of a broader effort to downsize bureaucratic excess, sent a clear signal: the old guard of Republican foreign policy is no longer welcome in Trump’s inner circle.

Staunchly pro-Israel commentators like Bari Weiss came to their defence. “Last year, Trump promised he would blow Iran ‘to smithereens’ if it ever harmed an American presidential candidate,” said Weiss on social media, accusing the US president of betraying his pledge. “But pulling security away from Mike Pompeo and other former American officials who need it, the president leaves America weaker and Tehran emboldened.”

Tucker Carlson, who had a front row seat at Trump’s inauguration last week is perhaps the most high-profile figure in the MAGA wing representing the deepening rift. This week, Carlson hosted another TV programme addressing the growing divide within the American right, following his earlier conversation with Professor Jeffrey Sachs. In the two hour-long interview, Sachs laid bare the long history of US involvement in the region, tracing it back to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 1996 “Clean Break” strategy, which sought to reshape the Middle East to Israel’s advantage through regime changes.

Sachs argued that America has fought “Netanyahu’s wars” for decades, from Iraq to Libya to Syria, and now faces mounting pressure for conflict with Iran.

He highlighted that the neoconservative agenda, deeply entrenched in Washington, has used religion and ideology to justify mass violence while pushing the US deeper into conflicts that serve neither its strategic interests nor its security. Carlson echoed this, questioning why the MAGA movement, which promised to disentangle the US from unnecessary foreign entanglements, would continue to tolerate policies that directly contradict the America First ethos. To the dismay of the neocons in the MAGA camp, Trump shared clips from the interview, including a section where Netanyahu is referred to as a “deep, dark son of a bitch.”

In round two of the nefarious influence of the neocons in Washington, Carlson interviewed Curt Mills, the Executive Director of The American Conservative. The discussion once again highlighted the neoconservatives’ fixation on perpetual warfare in the service of Israel. Mills described the neoconservative foreign policy elite as a political machine that had operated unchecked for decades, despite catastrophic failures. He pointed to the ability to adapt, rebrand and infiltrate successive Republican administrations, ensuring that the US remains entangled in foreign conflicts regardless of the electoral mandate against such wars.

Carlson, reflecting on this, questioned whether America’s long-term security and prosperity were served by continuing to bankroll foreign interventions. He criticised the neoconservative establishment’s use of exaggerated threats to manufacture consent for wars that have cost America dearly. He pointed out that these wars — whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or now the looming spectre of Iran — had not only failed on their own terms, but had also drained American resources, fuelled extremism and damaged the country’s international reputation.

“Sphinx,” Digital, Dream, Dreamworld v3, 2024

The Israel-Palestine conflict has become the focal point of the ideological divide within the American right. Neoconservatives continue to push for unwavering support for Israel, framing it as both a moral duty and a strategic necessity. For decades, they have used religious and ideological arguments to justify interventionist policies, portraying Israel as a democratic stronghold in a hostile region and an essential ally in the fight against terrorism. However, this narrative is increasingly facing resistance from the America First movement, which is sceptical of prolonged foreign entanglements and the costs associated with them.

Carlson and Mills highlighted how neoconservatives have relied on religious rhetoric to justify endless wars.

It’s a strategy that has defined US foreign policy for decades. Carlson pointed out that the same justifications used for past conflicts in the Middle East are now being deployed to push for further confrontation with Iran. He criticised figures like Bari Weiss who, despite identifying as a conservative, has aligned with the interventionist wing by insisting that America must always prioritise Israel’s security, even at the cost of its own strategic interests.

The decline of neoconservatism has been accelerating in recent years, and Trump’s presidency has intensified this shift. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — once defended as necessary interventions — are now widely regarded as costly failures. The financial and human toll of these conflicts has alienated a generation of voters, many of whom now question the wisdom of sacrificing American lives and resources for foreign wars. Carlson and Mills emphasised how this shift has emboldened isolationists within the Republican Party, who argue that America’s focus should be on rebuilding its domestic strength rather than engaging in perpetual military engagements abroad.

Trump’s own position in this debate remains characteristically ambiguous. While he initially campaigned in 2016 on a platform of ending “endless wars”, his first term saw a mix of interventionist and isolationist moves, such as ordering the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani while simultaneously negotiating a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trump later revealed that Israel backed out at the last minute, leaving the US to carry out the strike against Soleimani alone. Trump criticised Netanyahu for his hesitation, suggesting that Israel was willing to push for aggressive military action but unwilling to bear the direct consequences.

The revelation about Netanyahu fuelled further scepticism among the America First crowd, reinforcing the perception that US foreign policy had been disproportionately influenced by neoconservative interests aligned with Israel’s strategic goals. The staunch support for Israel during Trump’s first administration, largely driven by figures like Jared Kushner and Mike Pompeo, is said to have alienated some of his more isolationist supporters. Now, in his second term, Trump appears to be recalibrating his foreign policy stance. By sidelining figures in the Israel first camp, a section of MAGA believes that there is a shift away from neoconservative dominance. Yet, his continued rhetorical support for Israel suggests that he is not entirely abandoning the neocon agenda.

For now, therefore, the cracks within the MAGA coalition continue to deepen.

The debate over the Middle East is not just a policy disagreement, but also a fundamental battle over the identity of the modern Republican Party. The neoconservatives argue that America’s role as a global enforcer of stability — particularly in defence of Israel — is non-negotiable. Meanwhile, the isolationists, energised by Carlson and other nationalist voices, view interventionism as a betrayal of the America First ethos. As these divisions grow, they will shape the trajectory of the Republican Party and, ultimately, America’s role on the global stage. Whether Trump can navigate these competing factions successfully, or whether they will fracture his coalition further, remains to be seen.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

Via Middle East Monitor