Trump’s fiercest base—the marginalized and exiled, the only ones speaking out against the toxic U.S.-Israel relationship—is now the last line of resistance against total war in the Middle East.
If Donald Trump is who he claims to be, then being Donald Trump is by no means easy. But even his loyal base—the same one that put him in the Oval Office—is now intensely re-evaluating the question of who Trump really is. They weren’t just voters; they were the most effective activists of his campaign—unpaid, driven by belief in a higher cause.
Of course, history shows that politicians often first disappoint their base, pivoting to court groups that didn’t support them strongly in the beginning. Trump is no exception—and it was expected that he wouldn’t be. After all, in his first term he “left Washington in the swamp.” Still, the situation is complex. If there’s one key factor that brought his base back to him, it was the perception of his isolationism.
There’s no doubt that American isolationism would be a balm for much of the world, even among loyal U.S. allies. But for Trump’s base, the arguments are more specific and more personal. For them, this is a domestic issue. They’re convinced—rightly—that America is hurtling toward catastrophe largely because of its foreign policy and hegemonic ambitions. This ties into themes of nationalism, the seemingly endless printing of dollars (which devalues the ones in their pockets), and a genuine fear that if America behaves like an empire, it will fall like one.
Make no mistake: what fuels their intense opposition to military interventions and wars is not pacifism or moral concern for the casualties. Rather, it’s the desire to redirect that “energy” (money, engagement…) inward, to fix a country in a pitiful state. This base clearly understands the link between national survival and the grim scenes of extreme poverty and homelessness in American cities—let alone the fentanyl crisis ravaging the streets.
Some in this camp are aware enough of global dynamics to understand that America’s “enemies” often exist because of American actions. But most aren’t concerned with such complexities. What they do know is what they want: a president who sticks to the “America First” promise. In concrete terms today, that means not going to war with Iran—especially not at the behest of another country (Israel).
The base is consistent—but how strong are they? They are still led by figures pushed to the margins or outright exiled by the mainstream, such as Tucker Carlson and, even further out, Alex Jones. This spectrum is now vocally opposing war with Iran—and, notably, even turning against the man they helped put in the White House.
If Trump attacks Iran—which at this point seems likely—many will say the base was naive, along with millions worldwide who watched the U.S. election closely and hoped for a Trump victory. But is that a fair critique, or just the satisfaction of lifelong Trump critics? It’s easy to be anti-Trump. He’s a walking controversy, convinced of his cleverness because of his constant flip-flopping—sometimes daily. Yet what many in the “Never Trump” camp don’t understand is that some of his fiercest supporters were people who oppose nearly everything he stands for—politically and personally. Why support him then? Because, weak and flawed as he is, he was the only chance to put a leash on U.S. interventionism.
Wishing for a Trump presidency was always a dangerous fantasy. Even during his first term, after defeating Hillary Clinton, it was clear there were serious—and dangerous—exceptions to his isolationism. Chief among them was his toxic friendship with Israel, which risks harming many in the region, particularly Iran. That is now coming to pass, even if the U.S. claims it’s only acting defensively (helping intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Israel).
On the other hand, it made sense to give Trump a chance to end the war in Ukraine—even though that seems unlikely—because the only alternative was escalation under President Kamala Harris. Few could seriously argue that Harris would be a calming force in that war. In fact, the continuation of Biden’s policies (or, more accurately, those of his advisors, given his condition) posed the greatest risk of the Ukraine war spilling into the rest of Europe. If Trump offered even a slim realpolitik chance to stop escalation, then hoping for his return made sense.
And now, his core base is speaking out—we can only hope they raise their voices louder. But even they are not surprised. They know Trump. Alex Jones famously shouted, “F*** you, Trump!” when he approved a minor airstrike on Syria during his first term. Influential figures like Tucker Carlson remain, and just yesterday, Carlson conducted a striking interview with Republican hawk Ted Cruz (though Cruz denies being one).
Carlson dared to touch America’s sacred cow: support for Israel. Cruz responded—almost reflexively—by implying Carlson had a “problem with Jews.” A textbook smear, straight from the Israeli defense playbook. But Carlson wasn’t rattled. He exposed Cruz as a pro-Israel lobbyist and religious fundamentalist—a major wing of the Republican Party.
When Carlson pressed Cruz to explain why he supports Israel seemingly more than his own country, Cruz cited his interpretation of the Bible, claiming those who support Israel will be blessed. This isn’t just fundamentalism—it’s a veryloose interpretation of scripture. American Christian Zionists often cite Genesis 12:3 (“I will bless those who bless you”) to justify unwavering support for modern Israel. But most theologians argue this refers to Abraham’s spiritual legacy—not the state of Israel founded in 1948. The New Testament further emphasizes that all who follow Christ are Abraham’s descendants (Galatians 3:29). Jesus never endorsed defending any earthly state—he spoke only of the Kingdom of God. Old Testament prophets, too, condemned injustice and hypocrisy. If Israel, like any other state, commits injustice, the biblical message is not blind support but a call to repentance.
Setting aside the religious narrative that today’s Israel is the same as the biblical one (it’s not), Cruz is just one example of many American fundamentalists who use this theology to justify military aid and support for Israeli aggression. Sadly, many of them now have faster access to Trump than his isolationist base does—the same base he’s increasingly snubbing.
“Someone explain to weirdo Tucker Carlson—Iran must not have nuclear weapons. I don’t know what he’s talking about. Let him get his own channel and rant there,” Trump said on his social network, referencing the fact that Carlson is no longer with Fox News and now runs an online show.
Trump’s public dismissal of his former supporters, just for pointing out that he’s veering off course, reveals the extent to which his toxic friendship with Israel controls him (as we already saw in his first term). But don’t underestimate the base. Carlson’s interview with Cruz racked up 1.7 million views in under a day.
As of this writing, a statement from the White House has arrived: Trump will decide “within two weeks” whether to attack Iran. Based on what? If Israel gets into trouble, U.S. intervention under Trump is almost guaranteed. He’s likely just buying time to calm his agitated base, hoping Israel’s military prowess forces Iran into concessions—or, as Trump put it, “unconditional surrender.”
One thing is clear: Trump has accepted—or is preparing to accept—Israel’s narrative on Iran, particularly the claim that Iran is “just weeks away from a nuclear weapon.” This, despite the fact that experts—including U.S. intelligence—say that’s false. (Trump has already said he doesn’t care what Tulsi Gabbard has to say on the matter.)
What’s happening now mirrors the lead-up to the Iraq War two decades ago—based on alleged “weapons of mass destruction.” Many have since recognized how much of a lie that was, even former supporters of the war like Carlson (who openly admits he was wrong).
There is deep resistance to American interventionism. Yes, it’s coming from Trump’s hardcore base—people you might disagree with on many other issues. But just like with Trump vs. Harris, our only remaining option might be realpolitik support for the alternative to total war in the Middle East (and beyond). That doesn’t make the base “good.” It may be riddled with nationalism, fundamentalism, and reactionary worldviews. But in this situation, it’s the only—fragile—hope. Sadly, it may already be too late. Perhaps they’ve all been used and discarded, served their purpose, and soon it won’t matter who stayed loyal to Trump—but rather, whom Trump chooses to stay loyal to.
About the Author
