Not what 'MAGA wanted to hear': Trump's Iran strike stoking GOP tensions
MAGA figure Steve Bannon said Trump's comments about potential future strikes on Iran are "open ended" and worried the situation could escalate.
After President Donald Trump finished his address to the nation about bombing Iran, close ally and MAGA leader Steve Bannon declared on his podcast that it may not have been what “a lot of MAGA wanted to hear.”
Trump indicated in his June 21 White House speech he doesn’t want to escalate tensions with Iran further, but said “if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”
Bannon called Trump’s comments about potential additional strikes “open ended” and said the situation has the potential to escalate.
“This is incrementalism,” said Bannon, Trump's former first term White House chief strategist. “If they hit back at American troops, do we go back in and hit again? Next thing you know, brother, you’re in a forever war.”
Another MAGA stalwart, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, wrote a long post on social media the day after the bombing that starts by saying "I don’t know anyone in America who has been the victim of a crime or killed by Iran."
"I can support President Trump and his great administration on many of the great things they are doing while disagreeing on bombing Iran and getting involved in a hot war that Israel started," the Georgia Republican congresswoman wrote.
A vociferous debate about whether Trump should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities played out among conservatives in the lead up to the June 21 attack. Some prominent MAGA figures said a strike would go against Trump’s anti-interventionist approach, which has tapped into deep discontent with prolonged wars in the Middle East and reshaped the party’s foreign policy.
Opposition to “forever wars” has become one of the central tenets of the Trump GOP, something the president has repeatedly highlighted in casting himself as a “peacemaker” who would get the country out of war − not start new ones. That makes this a delicate and legacy-defining moment for Trump. It’s also a sensitive one for him within his own party.
Many Republicans are rallying around the president after the Iran strike. Everyone from Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence to a slew of congressional leaders and MAGA figures such as Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk praised the move.
Kirk said Iran gave Trump “no choice” and that he acted with “prudence and decisiveness.” Even Bannon, while raising concerns about how the conflict could play out, said, “Not that it’s wrong to take these actions; sometimes you must take these actions."
“Great unity in the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on social media the day after the attack. “Perhaps unity like we have never seen before.”
But tensions remain among conservatives. Bannon warned against attacking Iran before the strike. After the president went forward, he said that Iran could distract from Trump's domestic agenda, including immigration enforcement and passing his high-priority tax and policy legislation. Bannon pointed to the comment posts on his show's live chat in arguing Trump has “some work to do” to sell his Iran strike to his base, particularly among younger conservatives.
“There are a lot of MAGA that are not happy about this. … We can tell this in the chats right now,” Bannon said late on June 21, while adding that he thinks Trump “will get MAGA on board.”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, said Trump's Iran strike is "not constitutional" in a social media post and told CBS's "Face the Nation" on June 22 that his “side of the MAGA base” is made up of “non-interventionists" who are "tired from all these wars." Trump lashed out at Massie, saying “MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER... like the plague!”
What comes next will be key. Figures such as Bannon are concerned about seeking regime change in Iran, and don’t want to see the situation escalate.
"American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military industrial base profits," Greene wrote June 22. "I’m sick of it. I can easily say I support nuclear armed Israel’s right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don’t want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel’s wars."
The Trump administration is attuned to such concerns. Vice President JD Vance appeared on two prominent television programs June 22 to make the case that Trump isn't pursuing regime change.
“I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East, I understand the concern,” Vance said on NBC, adding, “This is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing.”
Vance also addressed the appearance of contradiction between the president casting himself as a peacemaker while dropping bombs on Iran.
“There’s a question about how do you achieve peace, and we believe the way you achieve peace is through strength,” Vance said on ABC.
Yet just hours after Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on television to tamp down talk of regime change, Trump said it might be a desired outcome.
“It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???" Trump wrote on social media June 22.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said June 23 that Trump was simply "raising a question" about the Iranian people rising up to overthrow the regime. Kirk posted on social media that "Trump is talking about an organic uprising" and the U.S. shouldn't get involved in a "forceful decapitation" of the Iranian regime.
Some conservatives are dismissing concerns that Trump's bombing campaign could fracture the GOP.
Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone told Paste BN Trump is "far too wise" to get drawn into a "prolonged never-ending war," which he said is the only thing that could divide the MAGA coalition.
Lanhee Chen, a fellow with the conservative Hoover Institution and former adviser to leading GOP figures, said on NBC June 22 that the debate inside the GOP leading up to Trump's strike on Iran has been muted since the bombs fell.
Chen argued that keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons has long been a unifying point for Republicans. If the attack ends up being similar to what Trump did in 2020 when he ordered a drone strike that killed an Iranian general and didn't escalate into broader conflict, then Chen said he believes Trump is "going to be able to hold the coalition together."
Republican consultant Matt Gorman said on Fox News Sunday that Trump "threaded the needle beautifully."
Gorman, who served as an adviser to GOP U.S. Sen. Tim Scott's 2024 presidential campaign, said the Trump administration has been clear that the Iran attack is "a very limited, targeted, focused operation. They don't want anything long term."
Iran's response could change the Trump administration's calculus, though. The president is gambling he can deliver a targeted strike without getting drawn into a prolonged conflict, something he has pledged to avoid.
"We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into," Trump said on Inauguration Day.
That commitment could be tested if Iran hits back and Trump weighs whether to retaliate with more U.S. strikes, which he is promising to do.
“I think the concerning part, at least the part that’s open ended," Bannon said, "is these additional strikes."
Contributing: Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy
(This story has been updated to add new information.)