Trump's Iran Strikes Expose Deep Rifts in American Conservative Media
Donald Trump's return to the White House has been immediately overshadowed by a major foreign policy decision that is sending shockwaves through the United States and across the globe. The Trump administration's choice to join Israel in launching military strikes against Iran has not only stunned international observers but has also triggered a profound and very public division within conservative media outlets in America.
A Stark Divide Between Interventionists and Isolationists
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump consistently vowed to extract the United States from what he termed "endless wars," championing an "America First" doctrine focused sharply on domestic priorities. Following his first term, he often boasted, with some exaggeration, that his presidency saw "no wars." This latest move, however, represents a dramatic pivot, reviving a style of interventionism reminiscent of the Bush era—a policy many believed the MAGA movement had explicitly rejected.
The reaction on the right has been anything but unified. "There is a MAGA generational divide on this. Older voters support it, younger voters do not," noted right-wing, pro-MAGA podcaster Jack Posobiec in comments to Politico. "Gen Z MAGA wants arrests on Epstein, deportations and economic relief, not more war." This sentiment, however, appears to represent a minority viewpoint among the most influential conservative media players.
Cheerleading from the Murdoch Empire and Established Outlets
Rupert Murdoch's vast news empire has largely adopted a supportive, cheerleading posture towards the ongoing military operations. Contributors on Fox News have characterised the strikes on Iran as "just and imperative" and "a successful, coordinated effort to promote fundamental and lasting change in Iran." In a strongly worded editorial, the New York Post lauded Trump's "decisive move to destroy Iran's war machinery and take out the regime's leadership."
Similarly, the editorial board of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, often seen as a bastion of the Bush-era conservative foreign policy establishment, described the strikes as "necessary." They argued that "the biggest mistake President Trump could make now would be to end the war too soon, before Iran's military and its domestic terror forces have been more thoroughly destroyed."
National Review, a magazine long considered the voice of the conservative establishment now navigating the Trump populist era, has also largely endorsed the action. One contributor urged arming the Iranian opposition, while another dismissed comparisons to the Iraq War, suggesting the conflict with Iran could conclude "within a few weeks."
Pro-Israel Voices and Cautious Optimism
Positions on the Iran war frequently align with longstanding stances on Israel and hawkish foreign policy. More ardently pro-Israel publications like the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, and Tablet magazine have fiercely defended the strikes as necessary. However, even within this camp, there is discord. Daily Wire contributor Matt Walsh mocked the administration's justifications on social media, stating, "The messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused," and warning, "It's foolhardy to think you can just drop in, take out the top guy and leave with no problem."
The Free Press, founded by Bari Weiss before her move to CBS News, has presented a more nuanced, split perspective. Several pieces express sympathy for the goal of toppling the Iranian regime but remain cautious or pessimistic about the likelihood of success. In an article titled The Case Against the War, writer and military veteran Elliot Ackerman highlighted the risks, noting, "The Arab spring offers several dire examples of popular protests for democracy mutating into deadly civil wars... A civil war in Iran on the scale of Syria would be catastrophic."
Fury from the MAGA Isolationist Wing
In stark contrast, the isolationist-leaning hard right of the MAGA movement has reacted with fury. Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative, declared on Steve Bannon's podcast that the decision represented an "open betrayal" of the MAGA base. Tucker Carlson, in an interview with ABC News, condemned the Iran attack as "absolutely disgusting and evil," predicting it would "shuffle the deck in a profound way" within the already fragile conservative coalition.
This decision is highly likely to empower Christian nationalist elements on the right, who often blend legitimate criticism of the US-Israel alliance with outright antisemitism. On the far-right fringe, conspiracy theorist Candace Owens and white nationalist pundit Nick Fuentes both condemned the war. Fuentes mocked voters who believed Trump represented a clean break from traditional US foreign policy, while Owens invoked antisemitic conspiracy theories in her criticism, dubbing the operation "Operation Epstein Fury."
Meanwhile, the influential cohort of "podcast bros"—including figures like Joe Rogan, Andrew Schulz, and Theo Von—have largely remained silent thus far. Based on past behaviour, they are expected to eventually express ambivalence or outright criticism of Trump's decision to attack Iran.
The American Conservative, a magazine co-founded by Pat Buchanan that champions a "paleoconservative" skepticism of foreign wars, was predictably scathing. On social media, the magazine pointedly posted a video of Senator JD Vance from 2024, in which he stated, "Our interest, I think, very much is in not going to war with Iran. It would be [a] huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country." This single issue has laid bare the fundamental and perhaps irreconcilable tensions at the heart of the modern American right.
