The ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran have prompted calls for the U.S. government, particularly from conservative circles, to reconsider its involvement in potential conflicts. Many Americans seem to favor avoiding yet another intervention aimed at changing foreign governments.
Notably, Tucker Carlson appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast and advised Trump to maintain a level-headed approach. He made it clear that his stance isn’t about being against Israel. Rather, he advocates for diplomacy with Iran over military action.
Carlson expressed his concern that if the U.S. gets pulled into a war instigated by Israel, it could undermine Trump’s broader agenda. He said, “I really like Trump; I think he’s a genuinely kind person. But I worry this would further weaken the country and might signal the decline of the American Empire.”
He went on to critique certain Republican neoconservatives who seem to be pushing for a war agenda. According to him, figures like Mark Levin and Sean Hannity may not necessarily prioritize the interests of Trump’s movement but seem more focused on national concerns.
On the Iranian side, officials have indicated that they’re open to more discussions with the U.S. regarding nuclear issues, provided the U.S. doesn’t support Israeli military actions. This information comes from reports highlighting a somewhat softer stance from Iran.
An Arab official reiterated, “The Iranians understand that the U.S. backs Israel’s defense, but they want reassurances that there won’t be U.S. involvement in military strikes.”
The goal should be to keep the U.S. out of disputes involving foreign nations and focus on diplomatic efforts. Yet, many still cling to the idea that intervention could lead to a change in Iran’s government. Some believe that a U.S. partnership with Israel in military operations could lead to regime change. Even Netanyahu has suggested targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader, though Trump has pushed back against this idea.
One has to wonder how many lessons need to be learned. It’s relatively easy to defeat adversarial forces in the Middle East; however, it’s far more challenging to establish better governance in their wake. Iraq is a case in point, as is Libya. Afghanistan was a misstep too, and while the situation in Syria hasn’t escalated dramatically, the new leadership there has questionable ties, even with ISIS. The U.S. hasn’t actively engaged in the Syrian revolution besides enforcing sanctions. Anyone thinking that the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader would pave the path to a pro-Western democracy is perhaps being overly optimistic.
This misguided idea seems prevalent among bipartisan foreign policy circles influenced by those who were responsible for the Iraq War disaster. These so-called experts put pressure on Trump to conform to their misguided strategies, despite their track records of failure. It raises questions about what is genuinely guiding U.S. foreign policy decisions.
