U.S. strikes on Iran nuclear sites spark rare unease among Trump loyalists

U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites have sparked fierce backlash within President Donald Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) base, exposing a rift between hawkish and isolationist factions that is likely to continue shaping the administration's foreign policy on the Israel-Iran conflict.

"An overwhelming majority of the people (in the U.S.) don't want to get involved in any of this," Steve Bannon, a MAGA stalwart with direct access to the president, said on his War Room podcast briefly following the strikes.

Bannon's remarks echo many Trump supporters who have voiced strong objection to U.S. military interventions overseas, representing a camp that advocates prioritizing domestic interests and adherence to presidential campaign promises to avoid entangling the nation in protracted foreign conflicts.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, another MAGA loyalist, said she was sick "of funding foreign aid and foreign countries and foreign everything."

"American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military industrial base profits," she wrote on X on Sunday.

These views came as some analysts point to the lack of justification for the strikes, citing insufficient evidence that Iran was close to producing a nuclear weapon, a contention reinforced by the resurfacing of a March congressional testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which stated that the intelligence community believed Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. 

But Trump blasted that assessment last week, saying he believed "Iran is very close to having one," without offering evidence. Following Trump's criticism, Gabbard said her testimony was taken out of context by "dishonest media." 

Iran insists its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Concerns are also rising that the military action will intensify U.S. exposure in a volatile region. Isolationist voices in Trump's camp counsel against being drawn into another protracted Middle East engagement, recalling past quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan. They contend that bombing Iran could invite retaliatory strikes against U.S. forces in the region – a closer target for Iran's missiles than Israel – and prompt it to disrupt global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

That directly fuels concerns about energy security. Analysts have warned that if Iran retaliates by blocking Hormuz, oil prices could surge, triggering economic fallout stateside. Initial market reactions appear to confirm such concerns. Oil prices climbed and U.S. stock futures slipped in the wake of the strikes. The potential for financial blowback undermines the argument that the strikes were cost‑free shows of strength.

Many within the MAGA base also see the operation as disproportionately favoring Israel. While some endorse Trump's alignment with Netanyahu amid the broader Israel‑Iran showdown, others question why the U.S. would act "on behalf of Israel" rather than out of purely American strategic interest. This tension feeds into an internal debate over whether Trump should double down on close ties with Israel or recalibrate toward a more independent "America First" posture.

In an interview last week, former FOX News host Tucker Carlson grilled U.S. Senator Ted Cruz over the influence of AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, in American politics, highlighting a growing rift between two increasingly visible factions.

The strain reflects a broader divide within Trump's support base between hawkish conservatives and more traditional nationalists. Hawks, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, praised the strikes as a military success aimed at halting Iran's nuclear march.

In contrast, isolationist MAGA figures, such as Carlson and Greene, have warned of the move departing from Trump's anti‑war agenda, rejecting the notion that U.S. military intervention is prudent. A recent poll by The Economist and YouGov found that 53 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2024 oppose the U.S. joining in Israel's strikes on Iran.

These fault lines suggest the president will have to balance conflicting incentives. Trump's self‑imposed two‑week window before deciding to act was seen as a nod to both sides – delaying while diplomatic options were explored, yet keeping military pressure as leverage.

Moving forward, Trump's next steps may reveal which faction holds sway, and just as he oscillated between calls for peace and demands for Iran's unconditional surrender before Saturday's strikes, he is sending mixed signals again. In a social media post, he asked rhetorically why wouldn't there be a "regime change" to "MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN" – a sharp turn from his call for Iran to return to the negotiating table just hours earlier.