Since his first election campaign in 2016, Donald Trump has consistently argued for the end to US involvement in foreign conflicts. Last week this changed, with US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as part of the Israel-Iran conflict, echoing War on Terror narratives from 20 years ago. Chris Featherstone writes that Trump’s strikes are a challenge for his administration’s foreign policy narratives, and that he must manage the growing split in the approach to Iran among his MAGA base.

The events in the Middle East over the past weeks and days will have made many observers think back two decades to recall the early years of the War on Terror. The War on Terror and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, have cast a long shadow globally. Their repercussions have been felt on the personal level in the daily lives of many and had long-lasting impacts on the international order.

As the recent crisis between Israel and Iran, and US strikes on Iranian Nuclear facilities has unfolded, this legacy is once again prominent in Donald Trump’s rhetoric. And yet, despite Trump’s apparently avowed isolationism, as we also have seen, Trump has struggled to resist the narratives of the War on Terror. His claims that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon mirror strongly the Bush Administration’s justifications for the Iraq war.

Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities represent this challenge to his administration’s foreign policy narratives. After years of calling for the US to play a less active role in the world, his involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict has the potential to entangle his administration. Perhaps even more than the tariffs or the immigration crackdown, the Trump administration’s policy towards Iran could represent one of the biggest crises for the administration and its support base. Will Trump emphasise his calls for the end to America’s “forever wars”? Or will he take the opportunity to be a wartime president as he so eagerly did during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Trump’s rejection of involvement in foreign wars

Donald Trump has consistently sought to frame himself in contrast to the mainstream Republican party. Early in his first presidential candidacy, Trump attacked his opponent Jeb Bush by attacking the record of his brother, former President George W. Bush, over the war in Iraq. In one of his early primary debates in 2016, Trump declared, “We should have never been in Iraq. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none.”

This stark attack on the US War on Terror was compounded by further condemnations of previous Republican administrations. Trump doubled down, condemning the “Washington Establishment” for dragging the US into “decades of endless wars producing only death and bloodshed, but no victory”, and that US soldiers “deserve a plan for victory,” and that “from now on, victory will have a clear definition”.

In the White House, the Trump team further illustrated the legacy of the Iraq war. When asked about the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election, Trump told reporters that he trusted Russian President Putin’s assurances that Russian intelligence had not interfered. Defending the comments, the Trump team reminded the reporters and the US public that the CIA were the same agency that had claimed Saddam Hussein had WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Trump 2.0 and striking Iran

Trump’s calls for an end to US involvement in foreign wars were a feature of his first administration. He defended his 2019 decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria by referring to this wish to end US involvement in foreign conflicts. He hit the ground running after winning the 2024 Presidential election, again focusing on ending conflicts. In the run-up to his second administration Trump again drew on this “ending wars” narrative, claiming that it was his influence and leadership that pushed both sides in the Israel-Gaza conflict into the (short-lived) ceasefire in January 2025.

More recently, after revealing a truce between Israel and Iran on Tuesday (24th June), Trump showed his frustration when in less than 24 hours it appeared that both sides had violated the agreement. In possibly the first example of a President swearing in remarks to the press on the White House lawn, Trump was visibly annoyed, saying “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f**k they’re doing.”

Despite this frustration with failure to find a truce, Trump has touted his strikes on the Iranian nuclear programme as an overwhelming success. Trump declared that the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, contradicting the report from the Defense Intelligence Agency that these strikes had delayed the Iranian programme by only a month or two.

“Stop the War protest” by Alan Greig, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Splits in Trump’s base over Iran

This disconnect between Trump’s actions seeking a truce between Israel and Iran, and the airstrikes he ordered on Iran’s nuclear programme is at the core of the fight within his support base. The MAGA world is split in the approach to Iran, and Trump must manage this. For the Isolationist camp, Trump’s involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict is a mistake and represents too much continuity from previous administrations. For others, and for now at least, the Donald himself, the strikes on Iran represent the US exercising and reminding the world of its power.

For now, the limited US involvement in attacking Iran has meant that the divisions within the MAGA world have not grown. Key figures such right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson and former Member of Congress, Matt Gaetz, have publicly disagreed with the President in a much starker manner than has previously happened. Carlson’s condemnation of Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s calls for US strikes on Iran represents the split between the two MAGA camps. Currently Trump has taken a side in this MAGA split. Trump attacked Carlson, posting on Truth Social, “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON”.

And yet, this issue is still not settled. Trump’s emphasis on isolationism throughout his political career is coming up against decades of War on Terror narratives of the US role in the world. There have been splits within MAGA previously, from the reported disagreements over immigration rules and Visas for highly skilled workers to the quarrels over the DOGE cuts. But the split over US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict is more fundamental than either of these other splits. Those in the MAGA-verse who disagree over immigration rules or DOGE cuts accept the principle involved, they just disagree over the implementation. Disagreement over US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict is more fundamental, focusing on the US’ role, foreign policy and its willingness to act.

The Trump administration and his MAGA supporter base has had a consistent focus on an isolationist foreign policy. Despite this, the administration’s strikes on Iran have led to an emerging split over what America’s role in the world should be. The isolationist narrative that Trump has pushed for years is coming up against the entrenched narratives of the War on Terror. How these are reconciled will have a huge impact on how Trump acts on the world stage, and US foreign policy in the future.

• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.