Donald Trump’s decision to strike three Iranian nuclear site targets last night has officially involved the United States in the war between Israel and Iran. And contrary to the note of triumphant finality with which Trump announced the move on TruthSocial, the attack elevates the level of risk for Americans, in particular the roughly 40,000 US service personnel stationed in the region who are now exposed to the threat of Iranian retaliation.

There is also, however, another kind of risk which the President is courting, namely the political damage his decision is likely to incur. By impulsively embracing the “bomb now, ask questions later” interventionism that he has run against since 2016, Trump’s attitude reflects the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations in their respective involvements in Iraq and Libya. Those who put stock in the promise of Trump as the America-First “candidate of peace” must now wonder: how could this have happened?

Clues may be found in the figure of Steve Bannon. With impeccable MAGA credentials, his stance against foreign adventurism was — at least initially — unmistakable, amid warnings of an impending rift within the movement should Trump attack Iran. On Thursday, two days before the strike, Bannon had a scheduled lunch meeting with Trump which news sources claimed played an “outsized role” in the President’s Iran decision, as if to suggest that the strategist may have talked his former boss away from escalation. Then, last night just as reports about Bannon’s supposed influence were percolating, the President announced the execution of the strikes.

One thing this reveals about Bannon and the “peace wing” of the MAGA movement is just how weak and marginal they are when it comes to confronting entrenched neoconservative and pro-Netanyahu currents in the GOP — contrary to suggestions that the party has transformed under Trump. Additionally, the fact that Bannon has preemptively forgiven Trump for any such lapse toward interventionism and signalled that he and the base will offer their support no matter what the White House actually does shows how morally hollow and rudderless their movement is.

In fact, Bannon directed a message at Trump earlier this week that “we trust your judgment, you walked us through this” and “maybe we hate it but […] we’ll get on board.” This choice of personal fealty to the President over any semblance of principle is echoed by other MAGA stalwarts such as activist Charlie Kirk and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Some, including Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Green, will find oblique ways to criticise the President, but no one is about to receive a Profile in Courage Award.

With this in mind, Trump — who is attuned to the feelings of his base like no one else in public life — likely sensed that the risk of political fracture was minimal given how little his supporters care about policy consistency. After all, MAGA — far from being a populist force for change — has displayed unthinking obedience to Trump and effectively caved on other major points of dispute with the GOP establishment, including tax cuts for the rich and the President’s own shocking admission that nothing should really change in the US’s cheap-labour immigration regime.

At this point, if MAGA takes the warmongering route, then it is basically no different from the party of Bush and Dick Cheney. As with so much else, Trump knows he can bomb Iran back to the Stone Age and his supporters will gladly follow along. To paraphrase Richard Nixon, they might as well say: we are all “radical war hawks” now.

---

Michael Cuenco is a writer on policy and politics. He is Senior Editor at American Affairs.

1TrueCuencoism

---