David M. Drucker: Don't confuse the Iran war's MAGA critics with most Republicans

There’s a joke circulating in political circles opposed to President Donald Trump that encapsulates the dilemma facing some of his most ardent supporters in the wake of ongoing U.S. military strikes on Iran. The current variation goes something like this: “They told me that if I voted for Kamala Harris, we’d get more regime-change wars in the Middle East — and they were right!”

First, let me be crystal clear: War is no laughing matter. American soldiers are risking their lives for Trump’s stated goal of ending Iran’s murderous regime. Whether you agree or disagree with the underlying approach, there is justification for Operation Epic Fury after more than four decades of the U.S. trying and failing to assuage Tehran diplomatically. But the president’s decision raises salient political questions for a Republican who said he would end wars — not start them, especially in the Middle East — while simultaneously warning that his Democratic opponent would surely do the opposite.

Will the Republican base, especially Trump’s loyal Make America Great Again movement, back his aggressive foreign policy play? Or will these voters view an extended American military operation in the Middle East as a breach of a political contract? After all, Trump’s stinging criticism of the 2003 Iraq war — and so-called forever wars, generally — was a key aspect of his appeal with the MAGA-aligned voters who now count themselves among the party faithful, to say nothing of some Republicans who now work for Trump. For instance: Vice President JD Vance.

Indeed, prominent figures on the right, including Trump loyalists, were expressing skepticism of Epic Fury, which is being coordinated with the Israeli military, even before it began. And other Republicans who commented after hostilities began appeared downright opposed. Their concerns could be magnified after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday declined to rule out American boots on the ground in Iran.

Mercedes Schlapp, who along with her husband Matt Schlapp organizes the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual pro-Trump gathering, had this to say prior to the president going public with news of the operation via video: “He is not a neocon,” she told Politico’s Dasha Burns for the C-SPAN program, Ceasefire. “The MAGA base themselves don’t want President Trump engaging — having these foreign entanglements in cases like Iran.” (Trump supporters often deride Reagan-era Republicans as “neocon warmongers.”)

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador went further, suggesting after the war started Saturday morning that Trump was betraying his commitment to put the U.S. above foreign interests. “I support President Trump. But ‘America First’ has to mean something,” he wrote in an X post. “It can’t be a slogan we shelve the moment the military-industrial complex beats the drums of war.”

Right-wing influencer Matt Walsh similarly questioned Trump’s rationale for war on X. “What nobody has even come close to sufficiently explaining is how this war will first and foremost directly benefit American citizens,” he posted. “As Americans, the freedom of Iranians is not our responsibility. If a single American life is lost in the service of that goal, it will be a travesty.” The first American casualties were announced Sunday.

But here’s the thing: These complaints represent the minority opinion on the right, including among Republican voters who would describe themselves as MAGA, veteran GOP strategists told me — at least for now.

“When it comes to going after the bad guys internationally, Republican voters’ instincts are little changed from the Reagan-Bush days,” Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini explained, citing surveys he’s fielded since the president was first elected in 2016. “They supported it in the old days, and they support it when Trump does it now.” Following swift U.S. military action in January to arrest Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, Ruffini’s firm, Echelon Insights, found that MAGA Republicans prefer a 2028 GOP nominee who “confronts foreign adversaries” over a standard-bearer who promises to “avoid interventionism” by the wide margin of 69% to 23%.

That tracks with my reporting for The Dispatch from last June, when Trump ordered a strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure to complement a full-scale attack by Israel. Then, as now, there were doubters. But then, as now, most Republican voters were supportive. Ditto for the majority of voters who consider themselves MAGA. Could that change? In a word: Yes.

“The danger for the administration is that this is not quick, not decisive and bogs down,” veteran Republican strategist and co-author of The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics Brad Todd told me. “If they start shipping the 101st Airborne over there and start setting up temporary bases inside Iran, then that’s going to be a problem.” Otherwise, Todd urged political observers not to mistake gripes coming from “keyboard warriors” on the right with the views of actual voters on the right.

“What is called the isolationist right is often misunderstood as a portion of the base that hates losing,” he said. “Their beef with Iraq and Afghanistan is that they [those conflicts] went on forever. Projecting American power abroad muscularly is fine with them, which is why they’re not isolationist.”

Even still, cracks in the MAGA coalition may be showing. And there’s only so many the coalition can withstand before the MAGA wing of the party loses influence — or shrinks such that it becomes impossible for the next Republican nominee to take the baton from Trump and win the White House. That’s something for Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio to think about.

____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

David M. Drucker is a columnist covering politics and policy. He is also a senior writer for The Dispatch and the author of "In Trump's Shadow: The Battle for 2024 and the Future of the GOP."