warmonger

The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities using advanced bombers and massive ordnance marked a turning point in Donald Trump’s presidency, a man who came to power vowing to end “endless wars” and to withdraw the U.S. from its role as global policeman. With the announcement of a ceasefire between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. in June 2025, brokered by Oman under heavy international pressure, serious questions have emerged: Was the attack a tactical show of force meant to drag Iran back to the negotiating table, or a step toward broader conflict? Is Trump seeking lasting peace, or is he tempted by the drama of a military triumph? And can he leverage this fragile truce to return to diplomacy, or will he stay the course of escalation?

Trump entered the White House in 2016 by sharply criticizing the Iraq War and the massive costs of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. He even justified the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani as a measure to prevent war. At the time, he passionately declared, “We are no longer the world’s policeman.” But the June 2025 bombing campaign, nicknamed “Operation Midnight Hammer”, reflected a clear shift in his approach. The operation, which targeted Iran’s Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sites, reportedly caused serious damage to the country’s nuclear program, according to U.S. sources. However, it was launched without congressional approval or broad international support.

Analysts believe several factors drove this decision: the perceived weakening of Iran following the depletion of its proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s push for U.S. military involvement against Tehran; and Trump’s need for a symbolic military “win” to bolster his domestic position amid growing anti-immigration protests and waning support among younger Republicans.

Yet, the ceasefire announced on June 24, 2025, facilitated by Oman and quietly backed by European powers and China, signaled that Trump may still be looking to contain the conflict. Reactions to the attack and subsequent truce have revealed deep divisions among Trump’s base and the international community. Steve Bannon, a staunch Trump ally, criticized the move as a betrayal of his anti-war promises, saying it was exactly what Trump had pledged never to do. Conservative figure Charlie Kirk warned that such conflicts could quickly spiral out of control. On social media, Trump supporters voiced concern about military spending and the potential for a drawn-out entanglement. Far-right commentator Jack Posobiec stressed that young Republicans prioritize fixing America’s domestic problems, like the economic crisis and social instability, over military adventures in the Middle East.

Global reactions were even harsher. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation condemned the strike as a violation of international law. The International Atomic Energy Agency warned that attacks on nuclear sites could have catastrophic environmental and humanitarian consequences.

The greater danger still looms. Bombing a country, without a ground invasion, rarely leads to peace. Iran, with its large population, complex military structure, and advanced missile and cyber capabilities, is not Iraq or Libya. A single miscalculation could unravel the ceasefire and plunge the region into deeper instability. If Iran retaliates, whether through asymmetric warfare or pressure on U.S. allies, the risk of escalation is high.

Trump still has the chance to change course. He could frame the strike as a final warning and use the ceasefire as a springboard back into diplomacy. A narrative like “We’ve shown our strength, now it’s time for peace” might resonate both domestically and abroad. But if he continues down the path of pressure, broadening the mission from containing Iran’s nuclear program to altering its behavior—or even regime change, he risks falling into the very trap he once called “the stupid wars of the Middle East.”

The success of the ceasefire and a return to diplomacy could solidify Trump’s legacy as a peacemaker. Its failure, however, may seal the end of his political career.

Donald Trump’s coalition has always been a Frankenstein’s monster — stitched together from parts that were never meant to coexist.

Consider the contradictions: fast-food fanatics hanging out with juice-cleanse truthers chanting “Make America Healthy Again” between ivermectin doses, immigration hardliners mixing with business elites who are “tough on the border” until they need someone to clean their toilets or pick their strawberries, and hawkish interventionists spooning with America Firsters.

Dogs and cats living together — mass hysteria — you know the bit.

Navigating these differences was always going to be tricky. But in recent days — particularly following Israel’s bombing of Iran, an operation widely believed to have been greenlit by Trump — the tension has reached new highs.

Signs of strain were already emerging earlier this year. We got early hints of discord during the “Liberation Day” tariff fiasco — where Trump declared an “emergency” and imposed steep tariffs, only to suspend them after they riled markets and spooked his business-friendly backers.

The tariff blunder was a harbinger of things to come. But it was the House’s passage of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” — a budgetary monstrosity that self-respecting Freedom Caucus deficit hawks should’ve torched on principle — that truly exposed the rift.

Enter Elon Musk, the billionaire tech bro and MAGA ally, who publicly trashed both the bill and Trump in a flurry of posts. He even referenced Trump’s name reportedly appearing in Jeffrey Epstein’s files — a claim that, though unverified, was tantamount to “going nuclear.”

But before there was enough time to say “Republican civil war,” Musk deleted his mean tweets, adding to the evidence that this is still Trump’s party; that modern Republicans view deficits the way the rest of us view library late fees — technically real, but nothing to lose sleep over; and that ketamine is a hell of a drug.

The next internecine squabble was over immigration. Trump proudly ran on rounding ’em all up. Mass deportations! Load up the buses! But then it turned out that his rich buddies in Big Ag and Big Hospitality weren’t so keen on losing some of their best employees.

So Trump floated a carve out to protect some “very good, long time workers” in those particular industries.

It even started to look like some exemptions were coming — until his Department of Homeland Security said “no mas.” (The raids will presumably continue until the next time a farmer or hotelier complains to Trump in a meeting.)

But the real fissure involves some prominent America First non-interventionists who thought Trump was elected to end the “forever wars.”

In case you missed it, Israel has been going after Iran’s nuclear capabilities with the same gusto that Trump aide Stephen Miller applies to deporting Guatemalan landscapers, and Trump is all in, calling for an “unconditional surrender” of the Iranian regime.

This didn’t sit well with everyone in the MAGA coalition.

“I think we’re going to see the end of American empire,” warned Tucker Carlson on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. “But it’s also going to end, I believe, Trump’s presidency — effectively end it — and so that’s why I’m saying this.”

And Carlson (co-founder of the Daily Caller, where I worked) didn’t stop there. “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians,” he tweeted. “It’s between warmongers and peacemakers.”

Then he named names, alleging that Fox’s Sean Hannity, radio firebrand Mark Levin, media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Trump donors Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson were among the warmongers.

Trump hit back, calling Tucker “kooky” and repeating his new mantra: “IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.”

It’s tempting to see this spat as the beginning of a schism — a break that might finally yield a coherent Trump Doctrine, at least, as it pertains to foreign policy (possibly returning the GOP to a more Reaganite or internationalist party). But that misunderstands the nature of Trump and his coalition.

These coalitional disagreements over public policy are real and important. But they mostly exist at the elite level. The actual Trump voter base? They care about only one thing: Donald Trump.

And Trump resists ideological straitjackets.

If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu rubs him the wrong way next week (as he did by congratulating Joe Biden in 2020), or if Israel’s military campaign starts slipping in the polls, Trump could flip faster than a gymnast on Red Bull.

There is no coherent philosophy. No durable ideology. What we’re watching is a guy making it up as he goes along — often basing decisions on his “gut” or the opinion of the last guy who bent his ear.

So if you’re looking for a Trump Doctrine to explain it all — keep looking. There isn’t one.

There’s only Trump.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”