Front Burner - The MAGA civil war over Iran

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Over the last week, as the exchange of missiles between Israel and Iran intensified, Donald Trump’s supporters have found themselves in two camps: the hawks, like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz who support America joining Israel in its fight against Iran. And the isolationists, like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson, who urge the president not to plunge the U.S. into yet another protracted war in the Middle East. Now that the U.S. air strikes on Iran have been met with a retaliatory strike on a U.S. military base in Qatar, are the MAGA factions digging in their heels or falling in line with the White House?Adam Wren, senior politics correspondent at Politico and a contributing author to POLITICO Playbook, breaks it all down. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Ten years ago, I asked my partner Kelsey if she would marry me. I did that, despite the fact that every living member of my family who had ever been married had also gotten divorced. Forever is a Long Time is a five-part series in which I talk to those relatives about why they got divorced and why they got married. You can listen to it now on CBC's Personally. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi everybody, I'm Jamie Pueissant. In the weeks leading up to Donald Trump's strikes on Iran, Mega World was generally divided into two camps. The America First isolationists urging the president to not get directly involved in

a war. Think Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Six months in, see, and here we are turning back on the campaign promises and we bombed Iran on behalf of... And Trump's former Attorney General pick, Matt Gaetz. Many of President Trump's pro-Israel friends and advisors are trying to pressure and convince him that the United States should join airstrikes against Iran. On this program, we strongly disagree with that assessment. And then there is the Hawks. Lindsey Graham.

We got a chance to end a threat to the state of Israel forever by replacing this regime with something better. And Fox News analyst Mark Levin. This is good versus evil. You're either a patriotic American who's going to get behind the president of the United States, the commander in chief, or you're not. But nowhere did this play out more explosively than on the Tucker Carlson show, where he took down Republican Senator Ted Cruz.

How many people live in Iran, by the way? I don't know the population. At all? No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple? How many people live in Iran? 92 million. OK. Yeah, I— How could you not know that? to topple? How many people living around? 92 million. Okay.

Yeah, how could you not know that? Now with Iran reeling from the repercussions of the U.S. and Israeli strikes and hitting back at a U.S. base in Qatar, have the divisions in MAGA world deepened or have they just been papered over? And what does it tell us about who's most influencing the president's foreign policy right now? Adam Wren is a senior politics correspondent at Politico and contributing author to Political Playbook. He's been following this supposed mega civil war

and he's here to break it all down for us today. Adam, hey it's great to have you on Front Burner. Good to be with you. So before we get into the news from this week, I just want to better understand the factions within the MAGA movement and why they land where they do when it comes to America's foreign policy. As I mentioned, on the one side, you have people labeled isolationists, JD Vance, Steve Bannon, Tulsi Gabbard, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, people who want

America to step back from getting directly involved in conflicts around the world and focus on issues at home. On the other hand, you have the Lindsey Grahams, the Ted Cruzs, Mitch McConnell, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. These guys are usually labeled as more hawkish towards Iran. And so why does this divide exist generally? In some ways, it's sort of an echo, an ideological outline of the old Republican Party, where you had sort of internationalists and more isolationists pre-Trump. And Trump has transformed the party into a much more isolationist party

overall and spent much of last year campaigning on it. J.D. Vance, his vice president, endorsed him in the Wall Street Journal in 2023, basically saying that he should be president again because he managed 2016 through 2021 without getting into the United States and to any wars. And so that is one of his big selling points. And of course, you know, a lot of this is muscle memory with people like Lindsey Graham are arguing for years, for decades, if not for more harder line towards Iran. This conflict with Israel exposes the ideological risks that were in this large coalition.

Donald Trump, to his political credit, smartly played the political coalitions over the last couple of years and built this coalition that includes both isolationists and hawks and people from the maha strain, the make America healthy strain again, like Gabbard and Bobby Kennedy. In some ways, just the ongoing conflict and the timing with the Israel and Iran war gave this coalition the chance to express some of these larger disagreements. But in the larger scheme of things, there isn't a schism so much to speak of in terms of just the bombing itself.

There were some arguments within the administration voiced by people like JD Vance not to get involved, but people are organized less around ideology in the MAGA movement and more around personality and that personality is Donald Trump and so he is the catalytic figure and what he says goes. Yeah, and I do want to get into that more with you in a minute. But I mean, certainly leading up to these strikes on Saturday, you could see the fractures, right? Maybe the place where you saw it the most was in that interview with Ted Cruz and Tucker

Carlson, right? It was super combative. Okay. What's the ethnic mix of Iran? They are Persians and predominantly Shia. Okay. No, it's not even... You don't know anything about Iran. They are Persians and predominantly Shia. No, you don't know anything about Iran. I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran.

You're a senator who's calling to the overthrow of the government and you don't know anything about the country. No, you don't know anything about the country. And just like what were some of the arguments that we heard on display there? Essentially that this is a repeat of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, that the administration would get balked down into a wider conflict, whether or not that was the intention or not. It's like you don't really know where these things are going once the shooting starts. That's my only point. And calling people names, anti-Semite isolationists to get them to stop talking is not the way

to serve your country. That's all I'm saying. So I'm trying to have a real... You know, essentially on Meet the Press, the Sunday show, this past week, JD Vance, the vice president, argued that the difference between now and then was that... Back then, we had dumb presidents, and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives speaking to of George W Bush of Barack Obama and you know that this is a different time now and that that

you know Trump is smart and therefore will avoid the pitfalls that he believes they succumb to. So this is not going to be some long drawn out thing. We've got in, we've done the job of setting their nuclear program back. I mean, are you surprised to see someone like JD Vance come out and say something like that because JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard are both Iraq war veterans, right? This was a drawn out unpopular war justified by the threat of weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to be there. So I mean, you know, I understand the pull of the the cult of Donald Trump. But are you still surprised to see JD Vance react like that in the last couple of days?

No, because JD Vance was elevated to his position by Donald Trump. And he owes Donald Trump his spot, the former spot that he had in the Senate and his spot that he has now in the Naval Observatory where he lives as vice president. He owes him everything and so he is required to repay him with everything. We watched how Vice President Mike Pence was a loyal sounding board to Donald Trump the first four years of his first term and it was only at the end when he and Pence parted ways on the 2020 election results that Trump cast him aside.

And so Vance, regardless of his own political ambitions and ideology, has to be faithful to Trump on this and has to sort of shove his own thinking and ambitions aside in service to Trump's larger wants. What about someone like Tucker Carlson? So I don't know if you listened to the entirety of this interview last week. I did. And I mean, he was so aggressive in his arguments, right, against the U.S. getting involved in anyway, right? He argued that the U.S. has nothing to show for all of these wars that it has gotten involved in in the last many years. Libya, a failed state in a migrant crisis,

Afghanistan, a forever war. And I see an unending string of foreign policy disasters that have impoverished and hurt our country. An unending string. An unending string. They would include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and our inability to stop the Houthis, by the way, in Yemen, which exposes us. Even Ukraine, right?

He made this argument that America's involvement has pushed Russia closer to China, right? Which is the real threat. At the end, where we sit now, Russia is stronger. It's closely allied long term with China. I don't know that Russia is stronger. I don't think that's right. I think it's pretty obvious that it is, but it's certainly not destroyed. And it's allied long term with China.

And so how is Tucker reacting in the wake of Trump's decision to get directly involved in Israel's campaign? Well, he doesn't appear to like it, but I would also sort of raise questions about the relevancy that Tucker Carlson has here. He knows that he can generate headlines by disagreeing with any action the president takes. He hasn't said it himself, but we heard Donald Trump last week say that...

...Tucker's a nice guy. He called and apologized the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong. And I appreciated that. And Ted Cruz is a nice guy. You know, ever since Carlson left the Fox News orbit, you know, he's had a shrinking audience and it's really hard to discern how much influence he has over the broader base of the party right now. Decades ago, Brazilian women made a discovery. They could have an abortion without a doctor, thanks to a tiny pill. That pill spawned a global movement, helping millions of women have safe abortions, regardless of the law. Hear that story on the network from NPR's Embedded and Futuro Media, wherever you get your podcasts.

Talking about Iran specifically, the US has this long and hostile history with the country, from the CIA working to overthrow Iran's prime minister in the 50s. Mohammed Mossadegh had moved to nationalize oil production in Iran. Well, the US was concerned at the time that that would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War. So shortly after his election, the CIA began to plan his overthrow, teaming up with Britain's M.I.C. To supporting the regime that took over, which was thought of as kind of like a U.S. puppet government. And then, of course, the toppling of that government in the 70s during the revolution. The revolution in Iran, a revolution that swept away all traces of the Shah's regime

and ended an era. On the surface at least, it was a revolution carried out in the name of Islam. And then the hostage crisis in 79, which involved American diplomats and civilian workers taken hostage. Several hundred young people, mainly students at Tehran University, have taken over the embassy. We are not occupiers, they said. We have thrown out the occupiers. But instead of chasing all the Americans out of the compound, the Iranians imprisoned them

in a building somewhere on these grounds. They have been hostages ever since. Can you help me understand how that history informs American policy and those who are more bellicose when it comes to their stance on this conflict, who have essentially won out here, right? Yeah, I think the organizing principle is fidelity to Israel, to Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, it's peace and security. And so, you know, largely, I think this is an instance of Bibi Netanyahu pinching and cornering Donald Trump and incensing him and invoking him to appeal to his more bellicose side.

And Trump, if anything, apart from ideology, likes to appear strong and decisive. And as he was watching Fox News over the last week and Israel's approach to Iran, he wanted some of that shine. He wanted some of that military glory. He just is fresh off having his own parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the army, which coincided with his 79th birthday. And the idea that he could do a limited strike in Iran and feel some of that commander-in-chief gravitas appeared to be appealing to him.

And so I think that sort of transcends any longstanding, historic positioning that the US has had on Iran. It doesn't appear that Trump's broader thinking about foreign policy is formed that way, even though he does have a long record of taking a stronger tack on Iran. I know that we've seen and we've talked about people who, you know, initially were against this and have kind of flipped their positions. I would put people like Matt Gaetz and Charlie Kirk in that bucket as well. Gates, for example, posted on Axe, President Trump basically wants us to be like a Soleimani strike, one and done,

no regime change, war, Trump the peacemaker, exclamation mark. But there are still people who are disillusioned by it, right? Steve Bannon is one of them. After the strike, he went on his podcast and he said, quote, an overwhelming majority of the people in the U.S. don't want to get involved in any of this. And that Israel, quote, essentially forced President Trump's hand. Who are you to jam us into this situation, which you knew you couldn't finish the job?

Or if you can't, go finish it. You got plenty of things to say. Hey, Bannon, don't waste time. We finished thing, go finish it. Quit coming can't go finish it. You got plenty of things to say, hey, Bannon, don't waste time. When you finish it, then go finish it. Quit coming to us to finish it. Like, how deep is that sentiment within Mega World? Sorry, can you hold on just a second? I'm texting with Steve Bannon, so I just need to... Right now? Yeah.

Yeah, no, I'm sorry. Where were we at? Well, I mean, it's really good timing that you were just texting with him because I think the question I have is, you know, after the strikes, he was critical of them. Like, he didn't come around with the other guys. How widespread is that feeling in Mega World? Is he kind of isolated, I guess? He really has a pulse on the base in a way maybe Trump himself even does not. And he said, you know, essentially on his show after the strike that there are definitely some people in the MAGA movement who are not exactly ecstatic about this happening, about the strikes and our involvement. In some ways, I had talked to Steve after he left

the White House last week before these attacks happened. And there's some speculation that he was used as a decoy, that Trump's meeting with him pointed or assaged that Trump would take a more dovish tackier. Right, and just for people listening, that was a meeting on Thursday, right? People thought like, oh, if Steve Bannon's at the White House, Trump's thinking about, you know, trying not to get involved in this, right? Yeah, that's correct. And so there is some consternation here. But I do just think that broadly,

except for a direct engagement of American troops on the ground in Iran, that largely the MAGA coalition is going to back Trump on this. They're going to give him some leeway. And if you look at the polling across partisan lines, this is an 80-20 issue. 80% of Americans don't think that Iran should have a nuclear bomb, even in this fractious partisan climate that we're seeing. This is going to be broadly popular, short of troop deployment. And so I think that's sort of the state of where the MAGA coalition is.

There's going to be some nitpicking here and there. We still are waiting for a damage assessment about how significantly some of these bombing sites have been destroyed, how significantly the uranium enrichment operation was damaged. Some of the early reports trickling out are suggesting that Trump maybe suggested that there was more damage that occurred than actually did. And so it's hard to sort of assess here, but I think at this particular moment, MAGA is largely behind Trump. And even amid criticism among some of these figures that we're talking about, like Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon, that we're just not going to see significant blowback as things

are suspended right now. MUSIC I'm just curious how much leeway you think there is here. Like, I see now you and I are speaking just a little bit over two in the afternoon on Monday. Iran has just fired missiles at the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, located in Qatar. Qatar's defense ministry was able to intercept those attacks, right? There are not any casualties or injuries to report at the moment. But what if they hit another U.S. military base and there were American casualties? You know, certainly Trump has said on social media that Iran should not try to respond

in kind. We know from reporting that's out there that diplomatic efforts back channeling have happened between the US and Iranian officials, letting them know that we saw this as a one-off attack this weekend. And so this appears to be largely an effort by the Iranian regime to save face and to respond in a way that they believe is de-mentorant here. And so, you know, beyond this, it's difficult to say at this moment where the conflict goes next. Lylea Salamon, Ph.D. Trump himself, of course, he did campaign on ending the Israel and Hamas conflict, the war in Ukraine. I know there's been debate over what he does actually believe, right, whether he is a hawk or a dove. And I mean,

how would you describe his foreign policy sense, how he sees the world? I mean, he is a dove-ish figure on paper who's not afraid to sort of saber-rattle to look intimidating beyond his actual actions. I mean, this is someone who did take out Soleimani back in his first term, and there was speculation at the time that that would involve and lead to a larger military action in the Middle East. And that speculation was wrong. And he largely kept his base intact then.

And so it's possible that that happens again now. I do think compared to many of his colleagues in the Senate GOP, for example, he is a dovish figure by all respects and you know, does make decisions in his mind that lead to sort of making America great again rather than, you know, investing into NATO and other, you know other alliances like that. Okay, Adam, this was really interesting. Thank you so much for doing this with us. Really appreciate it. Sure thing.

["Skyfall", by John Williams, playing in background music.] All right. So before we go today, at around 6.02 PM Eastern time last night, Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce that a ceasefire between Iran and Israel had been reached. Here's part of that post. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both countries, Israel and Iran, on having the stamina, courage, and intelligence

to end what should be called the 12-day war. This is a war that could have gone on for years and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn't and never will. God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and God bless the world. At the time of this recording, neither Israel nor Iran had confirmed this agreement.

All right. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.