POL Marjorie Taylor Greene Launches America First Movement Against Trump on Foreign Wars

In my opinion, those people sitting around that table are no longer an option for the intellectually honest or stable-minded person. They should just call themselves the anti-MAGA party. Millions of people are onto them. Why some here are not is just sad. Have any of you investigated where they're getting their money from? Nuff said.
 

The MAGA Media Machine Is Fracturing​

Once united in support of President Trump, right-wing influencers are embroiled in feuds and losing viewers, creating a problem for Republicans in the midterm elections.

Benny Johnson, a right-wing podcaster, was racking up tens of millions of views on YouTube during Donald J. Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign, posting about divisive cultural issues and criticizing Democrats.

Things have changed.

Views for Mr. Johnson’s YouTube channel are down by millions from the heights of 2024. The surge of attention he received on X has slowed to a trickle. His loyalty to Mr. Trump has become unappealing to some Republicans who are frustrated with the rising cost of living and the president’s decision to start a war with Iran.

Other high-profile right-wing influencers are contending with similar shifts of fortune. Dan Bongino, a podcaster and a former deputy director of the F.B.I., has seen his livestream views shrink by about half from their peak in 2024. Megyn Kelly, a former Fox News host, has found moments of explosive growth, yet that attention has been hard to sustain.

The shifts add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the audience for pro-Trump content has fallen from its heights and, for some creators, has reached new lows. Views are dropping for many of Mr. Trump’s greatest allies, while some figures on the right who have taken to criticizing Mr. Trump are showing uneven gains.

The shifts threaten to complicate messaging this year for Republican candidates, who have for years relied on a united front of content creators to rile up Republicans and guide them to the polls each election cycle.

“The vote is in November, but the heart of the midterms is happening now,” said Ryan Broderick, the founder of Garbage Day, a newsletter about online culture and influence. “A lot of the propaganda that they’re pushing out just isn’t really connecting the way it would have even three or four years ago,” he added.

To assess the shifting power of the online influencers, The New York Times analyzed several years worth of audience data across podcasts, YouTube, X and Rumble, the right-wing video website, for a dozen political content creators: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bongino, Ms. Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Steven Crowder, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, Stephen K. Bannon, Nicholas Fuentes, Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool and Charlie Kirk, whose accounts were taken over by other staff at Turning Point USA, the company he founded, after his assassination last September

Only a few saw their audiences grow since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, while many more have seen their viewerships decline. Some creators, like Ms. Owens drew new audiences by posting about a broader range of topics.

Experts point to a number of reasons for the changes, including the difficulty in stoking political outrage while Republicans control Washington, along with a quieter midterm season. All content creators are also subject to the whims of algorithms, like on X, which can change without explanation and impact their reach.

A fresh generation of influencers, such as Clavicular and the YouTube creator Asmongold, have also siphoned away viewers by speaking about politics alongside other topics like gaming and relationships.
Mr. Fuentes, for instance, saw notable gains in 2025 and early 2026 but is now trending down. “It seems that everyone in the space is experiencing a drop-off in views from 2025,” Mr. Fuentes wrote in an email. “Seems as though 2025 was the anomaly either due to organic interest or potentially artificial boosting,” he added.

The Times reached out to all 12 creators for comment. Many pointed to their successes on individual platforms, including TikTok and Instagram, despite declining engagement on YouTube and X.

A representative for Mr. Crowder said his total monthly views on Rumble had increased by about 10 million since January 2024. Ms. Owens said that maternity leave and vacations had caused her YouTube views to dip recently and pointed to data from Podscribe, an analytics company that estimates audience size across platforms, that showed softer audience declines since Mr. Kirk’s death. A representative for Mr. Walsh and Mr. Shapiro said they were seeing gains on TikTok and Instagram, and on a spinoff series on Mr. Walsh’s YouTube channel. Mr. Bannon said in an interview that his show focused on video broadcasting on Real America’s Voice, a conservative news channel.

Mr. Johnson said in an interview after this article was published that all political creators saw view counts surge during the 2024 presidential election, so a decline since then was not unexpected. He said that his accounts on YouTube and X still earn millions of views, and that his internal YouTube metrics suggest he’s on track to reach the same number views this year as he achieved last year.

The remaining creators did not respond to requests for comment.
One shift occurred after Mr. Kirk’s assassination when a rift between right-wing creators erupted, seeming to fracture their audiences. Some creators, like Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Johnson, posted memorials for Mr. Kirk and analyses of the accused shooter. Ms. Owens went in a different direction, launching fresh conspiracy theories about who had killed Mr. Kirk, with videos like “Who Ordered the Hit on Charlie Kirk?”
Ms. Owens saw her YouTube and podcast audience surge amid the controversy. She has stoked other conspiracy theories before and since, including falsehoods about the sex of Brigitte Macron, the wife of the French president, and has expanded her reach beyond Mr. Trump’s base, experts said. Ms. Macron sued Ms. Owens for defamation last year and the case is continuing.

“It might be a conspiracy to some people, but it’s not to me,” Ms. Owens said in an interview. “I think I do a very good job being thorough in what I present to people. We spend a lot of time on research, hours and hours and hours on research. So I would disagree with that assessment.”

A rift between pro-Trump and anti-Trump creators on the right deepened after Mr. Trump started the war with Iran.

Mr. Shapiro has been supportive of the president and the war. He lost about 60,000 subscribers on YouTube from April to June this year, according to data from Chaotic Era, a newsletter about online influence. Mr. Shapiro’s YouTube views have also declined to their lowest in years, dropping to about four million per week from 27 million in 2024. The publication he owns, The Daily Wire, has also seen traffic plummet by half since last year, according to The Righting.
Views for mainstream news websites are also down, the group found. But many right-wing websites have seen larger declines, including The Blaze and The Federalist.

Mr. Shapiro’s podcast has shown more resilience, partly because he has published 50 percent more content on his podcast this year compared with last year, causing total downloads to climb, according to Podchaser, an analytics company that collects and analyzes data about podcasts.

“Obviously Ben Shapiro still has one of the largest megaphones in conservative media, and his podcast is still doing fine, but that is an undeniable shift for him,” said Kyle Tharp, who writes Chaotic Era. “I think there’s a lot of increased competition on both the right and left in the partisan media space,” he added.

On Rumble, the pro-Trump and anti-Trump rivalry is playing out between Mr. Bongino, a Trump ally and former administration official, and Mr. Fuentes, a former Trump supporter who has become deeply critical of the president.

Mr. Bongino, who was a Secret Service agent before turning to broadcasting, left his post as a livestreamer at Rumble last year, at the height of his popularity, to serve as deputy director of the F.B.I. He resigned just months later.

Mr. Bongino returned to his old job of podcasting and livestreaming in February, but his audience did not seem to follow: After an initial bump from his first few episodes, his audience settled to roughly half of what it was during the highs of the 2024 presidential campaign. He rejoined YouTube after posting exclusively on Rumble for years, and while his viewership on YouTube is climbing, it remains among the lowest of creators’ numbers analyzed by The Times.

Mr. Fuentes, a white nationalist and livestreamer who publishes exclusively to Rumble, has been more vocally critical of the president during his second term. He saw his average weekly views climb to as high as eight million views per week, from around one million in 2024.

The success of disaffected Trump supporters like Mr. Fuentes and Ms. Owens suggests they will play a larger role in the future of right-wing content online, said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media watchdog.

Ms. Owens, in particular, is “moving from being a more typical right-wing commentary media personality” to creating more investigative narratives, Mr. Carusone said.

“She can create a story line and then push it,” he added. “And that, I think, is a sign of power.”

View: https://twitter.com/imbreckworsham/status/2081755128936251710?s=61



Today is July 27, 2026, and The Dan Bongino Show has once again fallen out of the Top 100 Podcasts on Spotify.

This happened despite him having every resource imaginable available to boost his show.

This is what happens when you lie to your audience.
 
Trump got 77 million votes. If you think the handful of crybabies that got fired, in the OP, can get any more than a few thousands to support them, then I have some really nice oceanfront property in Kansas, I'd like to sell you.
Ross Perot.... never forget.

The perfectionists that cant see real threats can and will have us under globohomo communist leadership and they dont care.
 
“She can create a story line and then push it,” he added. “And that, I think, is a sign of power.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/31/us/politics/trump-iran-economy-media-critics.html
Referencing story lines, perfect example. When Liberals are losing the argument, they retreat to safety, and post support from the NYT or WaPo, then say "see, I was right".

Reading the first line in the article, I already could tell it came from fake news, NYT. The gaslighting is amazing.
 
I think she resigned….
She resigned, before she got primaried out. What she never learned in her adult years, you don't publicly bash your boss, both in print and video, unless you're willing to suffer the consequences. Now, she's playing her "sour grapes" violin. Too late sweetie, you already blew up all your good will in the party.

2. Political pressure: Trump’s withdrawal of support and the specter of a primary
Once Trump publicly criticized her and suggested he might back a primary challenger, Greene faced an acute political calculus: run without the former president’s endorsement and risk defeat, or exit to avoid an intra-party fight she described as “hurtful and hateful.” Trump and allied voices framed her resignation as driven by “plummeting poll numbers” and the unwillingness to face a Trump-endorsed challenger, while Greene herself emphasized being sidelined by “MAGA Inc” and party elites [2][9][8]. Reporting from Unite America and CBS notes that primary dynamics — where many seats are effectively decided before general elections — increase the stakes of falling out with dominant party figures
 
Absolutely. In effect, there is the “republican” party (aka boomers and early GenX), and then everyone else on the right (who is politically homeless at the moment)

The defining issue on which success or failure of this party depends is support for Israel. People are done getting oppressed and bled dry by and for that country.

If they platform cutting all ties and support, they could absolutely take some GenX, and most millennials and younger from both conservative and liberal pools. It is that big of an issue.
I trust this will not continue as yet another airing of the anti-Israel and anti-boomer obsessions of some posters here--disguised as commentary
 
No one said or insinuated that. They are the counter party, so they get a say. Further, they have a vested interest in this, so we cannot simply dismiss their claims because “they’re Muslims”.

If Trump says one thing and Iran says another, then someone is lying. Religion has nothing to do with it.

To automatically assume Iran is the party not telling the truth without looking at any substantiating evidence is ignorant and folly.
Or, possibly there are factions in Iran with competing motives who are struggling for control of country's economy and military. And who give out policy statements aimed as much at their internal audience as to the world.

In Iran, religion actually does have something to do with lying. Islam allows lies and double-dealing when it comes to non-Muslims. I imagine the Koran is substantiating evidence. I know Tousi TV has devoted coverage of inter-faction conflict on the ground in Iran.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. And what happened there?

He siphoned off votes from Bush, which easily gave the win to Clinton.

Never forget.
View: https://twitter.com/mliammccollum/status/2084875791897071686?s=46



This attitude is so dated. The Republicans have the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, and the country is not materially better. Perhaps the Democrats would've made it worse, but they're directionally the same, and people who don't understand that it’s time to flip the entire table are simply out of touch and do not recognize what time it is or the opportunity before us.
 
:dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw: :dpaw:

LISTEN UP FOLKS BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY WARNING THAT WILL BE GIVEN.

If I see one more piece of ageist crap on this thread it will be deleted and the member threadbanned with a serious infraction for incitement or whatever else fits.

If I see one more piece of crap that belongs in the TIO war thread it will be deleted and that member threadbanned with a serious infraction for whatever fits.

I repeat THIS IS THE ONLY WARNING THAT I AM GIVING.

Some of you people need to find a different hobby horse and get a real life.
 
We said no more foreign wars and we meant it and supported Donald Trump because he made that promise. But he’s betrayed us all. Our commitment is America First for all Americans, right, left, and center. The movement has begun.
Recent commentary has labeled an emerging America First-oriented political gathering (critical of foreign military engagements and framing prior leadership as a betrayal of isolationist promises) as “Germany, 1926.”

The parallel compares the mid-Weimar moment of relative calm and international reintegration--alongside simmering alternatives--with the current state of American politics.

It suggests that new nationalist or anti-establishment currents can crystallize even during periods of apparent recovery or under contested leadership. That potentially contributes to further polarization or instability if broader consensus erodes.

The Nazis were a small, isolated group in 1926. The fracture of political consensus in the years that followed--dramatically escalated by the onset of the Great Depression--gave them an opportunity to exploit the fractures on the right. Just as the communists attempted to exploit fractures on the left. (research from Grok AI)

ETA: the 1926 reference is meant to be evocative, not strictly predictive.
 
Last edited:
The message has gotten across. This whole movement has legs because the message is loud and clear. The Massie election shenanigans solidified the fracture. I'm not sure why the neocon right continues to ostracize the dissent. They need to recognize the fracture, the reason for the fracture and if they truly care about this country 50 years from now, they will figure out how to bring unity instead of facing an American First 3rd party in 2028.
What election shenanigans? Are you suggesting fraud? It wasn't so close that it went to a recount, if I recall.
 
What election shenanigans? Are you suggesting fraud? It wasn't so close that it went to a recount, if I recall.
It would be nice to know that you were here in good faith attempting an adult discussion. Given your last two posts, even ignoring Kathy's post that you liked, I know youre here to fan some flames.

As far as Massie, there's an entire thread that documents the situation, you can go there to continue that discussion.

I've had you on ignore for a few months now, only took you off because I was curious your contributions to the discussion. Great contributions, btw. I'm gonna put you back on that list, your literally the only person to have made that honor.
 
This attitude is so dated.
Not really.

But those who think the Carlson Crew could anywhere amass the votes that Perot got, are smoking something good. I even think the Green Party or the Libertarians would get more votes, then they would. But to think the Carlson Crew could have an effect, is a nice fantasy.. Like I said above, turning on the boss doesn't help your future career, at all.

But if revenge is what they're after, since all were "fired", then they might achieve that, and give the election to Kamala.... Think long and hard about that, before pulling the lever in November....
 
:fprt

OK

Where we're at on this.

1st, it's Hippie's thread, he gets a little say in direction, especially considering that he's actively curating it.

It's contentious subject, so there will be some opposing POVs.

Be nice with your rebuttals.

The next "boomer" or "evil joos" (or any irrelevant crap) drift will result in some quality time in the cooler..

Good lord people. :rolleyes:
 
I think people are forgetting that Perot entered the 1992 campaign in February of that year. The people that we are talking about in 2026 have a year and a half headstart. I don't think that they will have any impact on the midterms but 2028?

It also gives their opposition a year and a half to coalesce against them. It gives them a year and a half to have additional dirt dug up on them. It gives them a year and a half for people to get tired of them and forget. And has any of them every had 18 months where they didn't pivot on various topics? And it is a year and a half of spending money they don't have to spend.

Having more time may not be as much of a plus as it initially might appear.
 
I think people are forgetting that Perot entered the 1992 campaign in February of that year. The people that we are talking about in 2026 have a year and a half headstart.
I don't think that will matter today. People have such short memories, and move on to a new "shiny thing" weekly.

I think the best strategy, if I was running, would be to keep your powder dry, then start doing major campaigning late September or early October. Anything earlier than that, and the sheep will completely forget.
 

You Vote: With talk of a new political party or movement led by Carlson and Greene, what say you?​


Greene's photo, posted on X on Saturday, featured the three, who have been sidelined over their opposition to President Trump's agenda and suggests discussions on a third party are continuing. Last month, Carlson said he was planning to create a new political party.

Former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted a photo this past weekend of herself, Tucker Carlson and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., along with the statement that "the movement has come."

Last month, Carlson said he was planning to create a new political party, the Columbia Journalism Review reported.

Greene's photo, posted on X on Saturday, featured the three, who have been sidelined over their opposition to President Trump's agenda and suggests discussions on a third party are continuing.

"We said no more foreign wars, and we meant it and supported Donald Trump because he made that promise. But he’s betrayed us all. Our commitment is America First for all Americans, right, left, and center," Greene stated in the post.

Taylor did not seek reelection this year after Trump pulled his endorsement, and Massie lost his primary reelection bid to a Trump-backed candidate. Carlson, a conservative pundit and former Fox News Channel opinion-show host, fell out of favor with Trump in large part over his opposition to the Iran war.

You Vote: With talk of a new political party or movement led by Carlson and Greene, what say you?​

Choices
  • It will be a big success, and hurt the GOP as it will win over many of its voters
  • It will never get off the ground, at all, showing how little clout and following they have
  • They will actively try to establish a new political party or movement, but it will attract few followers and they'll end up stopping, as they gain little traction.


And the Winner is:

1785943018481.png
 

You Vote: With talk of a new political party or movement led by Carlson and Greene, what say you?​


Greene's photo, posted on X on Saturday, featured the three, who have been sidelined over their opposition to President Trump's agenda and suggests discussions on a third party are continuing. Last month, Carlson said he was planning to create a new political party.

Former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted a photo this past weekend of herself, Tucker Carlson and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., along with the statement that "the movement has come."

Last month, Carlson said he was planning to create a new political party, the Columbia Journalism Review reported.

Greene's photo, posted on X on Saturday, featured the three, who have been sidelined over their opposition to President Trump's agenda and suggests discussions on a third party are continuing.

"We said no more foreign wars, and we meant it and supported Donald Trump because he made that promise. But he’s betrayed us all. Our commitment is America First for all Americans, right, left, and center," Greene stated in the post.

Taylor did not seek reelection this year after Trump pulled his endorsement, and Massie lost his primary reelection bid to a Trump-backed candidate. Carlson, a conservative pundit and former Fox News Channel opinion-show host, fell out of favor with Trump in large part over his opposition to the Iran war.

You Vote: With talk of a new political party or movement led by Carlson and Greene, what say you?​

Choices
  • It will be a big success, and hurt the GOP as it will win over many of its voters
  • It will never get off the ground, at all, showing how little clout and following they have
  • They will actively try to establish a new political party or movement, but it will attract few followers and they'll end up stopping, as they gain little traction.


And the Winner is:

View attachment 614939
They will place the democrats in power, it only took RP what 3% of the vote, to put clinton in?
 
Opinion piece

America First promised fewer wars. Iran is testing that promise

One of President Donald Trump’s defining campaign themes was refreshingly simple: America should stop fighting endless wars.

He repeated that message across three presidential campaigns. Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan became a twenty-year quagmire. America had spent trillions of dollars, sacrificed thousands of lives, and, too often, had little to show for it beyond instability and nation-building projects that rarely fulfilled their promises.

During a 2016 presidential debate, Trump called the Iraq War “a big fat mistake.”

Eight years later, while campaigning for a return to the White House, he promised, “I will not send you to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end.”

In his 2024 inaugural address, he declared, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

The Iran conflict has been underway for only five months, a far cry from Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, which dragged on for years or even decades. American casualties, while tragic, remain comparatively limited compared with those in those wars.

Whether or not one agreed with Trump on every issue, his criticism resonated with millions of Americans. They were tired of serving as the world’s policeman and wanted a president who would put American interests first rather than constantly inserting the United States into conflicts halfway around the globe.

It became one of the pillars of the America First movement.

Reality, however, has a way of testing campaign promises. As Mike Tyson famously observed, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

To be fair, the war in Ukraine was not Donald Trump’s doing. Russia invaded under Joe Biden’s watch, with tensions rising for several decades over NATO expansion. The conflict had already become Europe’s largest land war since World War II before Trump returned to office.

Still, candidate Trump repeatedly said he could end the conflict quickly — famously claiming he could resolve it in twenty-four hours. Most supporters dismissed the statement as classic Trump hyperbole rather than a literal timetable. Nevertheless, they expected a dramatically different approach to diplomacy.

Nearly two years into his presidency, that war continues, with no obvious end in sight.

Then came Iran.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities was justified. Iran has long sponsored terrorist proxies across the Middle East, repeatedly threatened Israel, and pursued nuclear capabilities that many view as an unacceptable strategic risk. There is a legitimate national security argument that military action became necessary.

That debate, however, is not the point.

The broader question is whether another military conflict in the Middle East aligns with the foreign policy Americans believed they were voting for.

During the campaign, Trump frequently criticized what he called “stupid wars.” He argued that previous administrations had squandered enormous amounts of American blood and treasure in pursuit of objectives that often proved elusive.

His appeal was not built on isolationism but on restraint. Military force would remain available when America’s vital interests were threatened, but it would no longer be the default response to every international crisis.

The distinction mattered.

Today, supporters are understandably asking where the current conflict fits into that philosophy.

President Trump has recently clarified that he never guaranteed there would be no new wars. That is certainly true. Campaign rhetoric often simplifies complex realities, and governing is considerably harder than campaigning.

The Middle East today is anything but simple.

Iran cannot be viewed in isolation. Russia has strengthened its strategic relationship with Tehran, while reports suggest that Ukraine has provided assistance to Israel in certain areas.

China has strategic interests throughout the region. European allies remain deeply invested, particularly in the unimpeded transit of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Every move on this geopolitical chessboard affects multiple players at once, making diplomatic off-ramps far more difficult than campaign rhetoric often suggests.

None of this excuses prolonged military involvement, but it does explain why governing is far more complex than giving campaign speeches.

However, complexity does not remove accountability.

Campaign promises set expectations. Voters reasonably judge elected officials against those expectations, even as they acknowledge that circumstances change.

Perhaps the greatest political challenge facing Republicans is not criticism from Democrats but growing unease within their coalition.

The modern Republican Party is no longer unified in support of an interventionist foreign policy. Many of Trump’s strongest supporters embraced America First precisely because it marked a departure from decades of military intervention by both political parties.

Their skepticism extends beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to a broader question: should the United States continue to act as the world’s indispensable military power whenever international crises arise?

This debate is hardly new.

More than sixty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about the growing influence of what he famously called the “military-industrial complex.” His concern was not that defense contractors were inherently corrupt.

Rather, he cautioned that permanent institutions naturally develop incentives to perpetuate themselves. Defense contractors understandably benefit from defense spending. Military bureaucracies justify larger budgets by highlighting global threats. Politicians often find it easier to support military action than to explain diplomatic restraint.

The same dynamic persists throughout government. Pharmaceutical companies naturally pursue profitable markets. Public health agencies seek expanded authority. Every institution develops interests that may not always align with those of the public it serves.

Recognizing those incentives is not cynicism. It is simply good governance.

Ultimately, history will judge whether President Trump’s decisions on Iran were strategically necessary or mistaken. That verdict cannot be rendered while events are still unfolding. Predicting the end of the game at halftime is folly.

Politics, however, operates on a much shorter timeline.

If the conflict with Iran expands or drags on for years while the war in Ukraine remains unresolved, Republicans may find themselves defending the very foreign policy Donald Trump once promised to replace.

That would create more than a political problem.

It would raise an uncomfortable question for millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, believing that America First meant fewer wars, greater restraint, and an end to the seemingly endless cycle of foreign military commitments.

The Iran conflict has not yet become another Iraq or Afghanistan. It may end quickly, vindicating the administration’s decisions. Or it may become the very kind of prolonged military commitment Trump once condemned. At this point, no one knows.

Campaign slogans inspire voters.

Ultimately, governance is measured by results.

 
They will place the democrats in power, it only took RP what 3% of the vote, to put clinton in?

Possibly. Maybe. Unless Trump has some successes that stack up against his failures. I mean lets be realistic. Everyone fails but Trump has succeeded in areas that were being ignored. The dems and others have a habit of ignoring what they don't want to see in favor of their fave attacks they think are successful.

Given the kind of money they would need to pull in to make any kind of showing much less a decent one, they've got a long hard uphill climb to even get to the starting line much less actually make it into the race.
 
Opinion piece

America First promised fewer wars. Iran is testing that promise

One of President Donald Trump’s defining campaign themes was refreshingly simple: America should stop fighting endless wars.

He repeated that message across three presidential campaigns. Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan became a twenty-year quagmire. America had spent trillions of dollars, sacrificed thousands of lives, and, too often, had little to show for it beyond instability and nation-building projects that rarely fulfilled their promises.

During a 2016 presidential debate, Trump called the Iraq War “a big fat mistake.”

Eight years later, while campaigning for a return to the White House, he promised, “I will not send you to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end.”

In his 2024 inaugural address, he declared, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

The Iran conflict has been underway for only five months, a far cry from Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, which dragged on for years or even decades. American casualties, while tragic, remain comparatively limited compared with those in those wars.

Whether or not one agreed with Trump on every issue, his criticism resonated with millions of Americans. They were tired of serving as the world’s policeman and wanted a president who would put American interests first rather than constantly inserting the United States into conflicts halfway around the globe.

It became one of the pillars of the America First movement.

Reality, however, has a way of testing campaign promises. As Mike Tyson famously observed, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

To be fair, the war in Ukraine was not Donald Trump’s doing. Russia invaded under Joe Biden’s watch, with tensions rising for several decades over NATO expansion. The conflict had already become Europe’s largest land war since World War II before Trump returned to office.

Still, candidate Trump repeatedly said he could end the conflict quickly — famously claiming he could resolve it in twenty-four hours. Most supporters dismissed the statement as classic Trump hyperbole rather than a literal timetable. Nevertheless, they expected a dramatically different approach to diplomacy.

Nearly two years into his presidency, that war continues, with no obvious end in sight.

Then came Iran.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities was justified. Iran has long sponsored terrorist proxies across the Middle East, repeatedly threatened Israel, and pursued nuclear capabilities that many view as an unacceptable strategic risk. There is a legitimate national security argument that military action became necessary.

That debate, however, is not the point.

The broader question is whether another military conflict in the Middle East aligns with the foreign policy Americans believed they were voting for.

During the campaign, Trump frequently criticized what he called “stupid wars.” He argued that previous administrations had squandered enormous amounts of American blood and treasure in pursuit of objectives that often proved elusive.

His appeal was not built on isolationism but on restraint. Military force would remain available when America’s vital interests were threatened, but it would no longer be the default response to every international crisis.

The distinction mattered.

Today, supporters are understandably asking where the current conflict fits into that philosophy.

President Trump has recently clarified that he never guaranteed there would be no new wars. That is certainly true. Campaign rhetoric often simplifies complex realities, and governing is considerably harder than campaigning.

The Middle East today is anything but simple.

Iran cannot be viewed in isolation. Russia has strengthened its strategic relationship with Tehran, while reports suggest that Ukraine has provided assistance to Israel in certain areas.

China has strategic interests throughout the region. European allies remain deeply invested, particularly in the unimpeded transit of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Every move on this geopolitical chessboard affects multiple players at once, making diplomatic off-ramps far more difficult than campaign rhetoric often suggests.

None of this excuses prolonged military involvement, but it does explain why governing is far more complex than giving campaign speeches.

However, complexity does not remove accountability.

Campaign promises set expectations. Voters reasonably judge elected officials against those expectations, even as they acknowledge that circumstances change.

Perhaps the greatest political challenge facing Republicans is not criticism from Democrats but growing unease within their coalition.

The modern Republican Party is no longer unified in support of an interventionist foreign policy. Many of Trump’s strongest supporters embraced America First precisely because it marked a departure from decades of military intervention by both political parties.

Their skepticism extends beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to a broader question: should the United States continue to act as the world’s indispensable military power whenever international crises arise?

This debate is hardly new.

More than sixty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about the growing influence of what he famously called the “military-industrial complex.” His concern was not that defense contractors were inherently corrupt.

Rather, he cautioned that permanent institutions naturally develop incentives to perpetuate themselves. Defense contractors understandably benefit from defense spending. Military bureaucracies justify larger budgets by highlighting global threats. Politicians often find it easier to support military action than to explain diplomatic restraint.

The same dynamic persists throughout government. Pharmaceutical companies naturally pursue profitable markets. Public health agencies seek expanded authority. Every institution develops interests that may not always align with those of the public it serves.

Recognizing those incentives is not cynicism. It is simply good governance.

Ultimately, history will judge whether President Trump’s decisions on Iran were strategically necessary or mistaken. That verdict cannot be rendered while events are still unfolding. Predicting the end of the game at halftime is folly.

Politics, however, operates on a much shorter timeline.

If the conflict with Iran expands or drags on for years while the war in Ukraine remains unresolved, Republicans may find themselves defending the very foreign policy Donald Trump once promised to replace.

That would create more than a political problem.

It would raise an uncomfortable question for millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, believing that America First meant fewer wars, greater restraint, and an end to the seemingly endless cycle of foreign military commitments.

The Iran conflict has not yet become another Iraq or Afghanistan. It may end quickly, vindicating the administration’s decisions. Or it may become the very kind of prolonged military commitment Trump once condemned. At this point, no one knows.

Campaign slogans inspire voters.

Ultimately, governance is measured by results.

A point can be made that he didn't start Iran, he's attempting to finish a war that has been fomenting for nearly 50 years.
 
Some might say Trump started a war, when all he actually did was defend America and the west. Big difference, imo.
That's the part I don't get about the anti-war people. After the thousands of dead military and civilians by the hands of Iran and their proxies, how many more dead bodies is acceptable to them. When I ask that question, all I get is crickets.

Then, all these antis completely ignore the BIG picture why Trump took this on. They are so myopic, it's crazy...
 
When I ask that question, all I get is crickets....

Because it’s a fallacious argument that flat out ignores many decades of history. It’s all documented….


A CIA-backed 1953 coup in Iran haunts the country with people still trying to make sense of it

Seventy years after a CIA-orchestrated coup toppled Iran’s prime minister, its legacy remains both contentious and complicated for the Islamic Republic as tensions stay high with the United States.

While highlighted as a symbol of Western imperialism by Iran’s theocracy, the coup unseating Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh — over America’s fears about a possible tilt toward the Soviet Union and the loss of Iranian crude oil — appeared backed at the time by the country’s leading Shiite clergy.

But nowadays, hard-line Iranian state television airs repeated segments describing the coup as showing how America can’t be trusted, while authorities bar the public from visiting Mossadegh’s grave in a village outside of Tehran.

Such conflicts are common in Iran, where “Death to America” can still be heard at Friday prayers in Tehran while many on its streets say they’d welcome a better relationship with the U.S. But as memories of the coup further fade away along with those alive during it, controlling which allegory Iranians see in it has grown more important for both the country’s government and its people.

“Maybe the U.S. did this out of fear of the emerging power of the Soviet Union, but it was like wishing for an earthquake to get rid of a bad neighbor,” said Rana, a 24-year-old painter who like some others who spoke to The Associated Press gave only her first name for fear of reprisals. For Iranians, “the rancor has never melted.”

The August 1953 coup stemmed from U.S. fears over the Soviet Union increasingly wanting a piece of Iran as Communists agitated within the country. The ground had been laid partially by the British, who wanted to wrest back access to the Iranian oil industry, which had been nationalized earlier by Mossadegh.


Even Jack is wondering wtf..

View: http://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/2084793460901474524?s=46&t=nGVgcONItgQOe_JoKFy5Ww
 
Last edited:
Top