America First Coalition Showing Cracks And It's Not Good

In partnership with

As of June 17, 2025, the geopolitical landscape involving Iran, Israel, and the United States has sparked a notable divide among the America First coalition. This is evident in the rift between two prominent conservative voices, particularly between former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and President Donald Trump. This rift, centered around the recent Israeli airstrikes on Iran and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy, highlights differing perspectives on America’s role in the Middle East and the potential for escalating conflict.

While both figures have historically aligned on many issues, the Iran situation has brought their viewpoints into sharp contrast, with Carlson advocating caution and Trump navigating a complex diplomatic tightrope. The tension between Carlson and Trump became more apparent following Israel’s military actions against Iran, which were ostensibly aimed at preventing the latter from acquiring nuclear capabilities. Trump, now in his second term as president, has publicly acknowledged being aware of Israel’s plans while simultaneously distancing the U.S. from direct involvement. In a recent address from the White House, he expressed concerns that such strikes could jeopardize ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, a stance that suggests a preference for diplomacy over immediate military escalation. However, his administration’s actions, including the evacuation of some U.S. personnel from the region, have raised questions about the extent of American support for Israel’s operations, creating a mixed message that has fueled debate.

The Daily Newsletter for Intellectually Curious Readers

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Join for free today!

Carlson, on the other hand, has taken a more critical stance, suggesting in his recent newsletter that the U.S. may have been complicit in Israel’s actions. He has framed the situation as a potential precursor to all-out war, urging a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy to avoid repeating what he views as the missteps of past interventions, such as the Iraq War. His commentary reflects a broader skepticism toward military engagements that lack clear justification or public support, a position that resonates with a segment of the conservative base that prioritizes an "America First" approach. This perspective has gained traction among some analysts who argue that the intelligence supporting claims of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat requires closer scrutiny, especially given historical precedents where such assertions proved inaccurate. The divergence between the two figures is not entirely unexpected, given their evolving roles.

Trump, as president, faces the practical challenges of managing international alliances and domestic political pressures, including the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups and the strategic importance of maintaining stability in the Middle East. His administration’s "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, inherited from his first term, has been a cornerstone of his foreign policy, aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions through sanctions and diplomatic leverage. The recent Israeli strikes, while not directly ordered by the U.S., align with this broader strategy, though Trump’s public opposition to the timing suggests an attempt to balance these interests with his stated goal of avoiding a broader conflict.

Carlson, no longer bound by the constraints of a traditional media platform, has leveraged his independent voice to challenge the administration’s narrative. His newsletter and public statements emphasize the need for transparency and a clear rationale for any military involvement, drawing on the lessons of the 2003 Iraq invasion, which was justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction that were later debunked. This stance is supported by recent intelligence assessments, such as those presented by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in March 2025, which indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program since suspending it in 2003. Carlson’s position appears to lean on the idea that rushing into conflict without conclusive evidence could undermine both U.S. credibility and Trump’s own diplomatic efforts. This rift has broader implications for the conservative movement, which has often found unity under Trump’s leadership.

The Israel-Iran conflict has exposed fault lines, with some conservative activists and commentators echoing Carlson’s call for restraint, while others support Trump’s apparent alignment with Israel’s defensive actions. The situation has also sparked discussions about the influence of neoconservative voices within the administration, with figures like Carlson arguing that such perspectives could steer the U.S. toward unnecessary wars. Meanwhile, Trump’s attempt to claim credit for Israel’s success while distancing himself from the operation reflects the delicate balance he must strike to maintain his coalition, which includes both isolationist and interventionist factions. The public discourse surrounding this issue has been marked by a mix of support and criticism for both men. Carlson’s warnings about the risks of escalation have found an audience among those wary of prolonged military engagements, particularly given the economic and human costs of past conflicts.

Trump, however, retains the backing of those who see his leadership as a bulwark against Iranian aggression, with some pointing to his administration’s efforts to strengthen U.S.-Israel ties. The lack of consensus is evident in the ongoing debates, with neither side appearing willing to fully concede ground. Looking ahead, the Iran situation may serve as a defining moment for the relationship between Carlson and Trump. If the strikes lead to a de-escalation and successful negotiations, Trump’s approach could be vindicated, potentially mending any fractures.

Conversely, should the conflict intensify, Carlson’s cautionary stance might gain more traction, positioning him as a voice of reason within the conservative sphere. For now, the divide reflects a healthy, if contentious, debate about the direction of U.S. foreign policy, with both figures bringing valuable perspectives to the table. In conclusion, the rift between Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump over the Iran situation underscores the complexities of navigating modern geopolitics. Carlson’s emphasis on avoiding unproven conflicts aligns with a cautious, evidence-based approach, which carries weight given historical misjudgments.

Trump’s balancing act between diplomacy and alliance commitments reflects the pragmatic challenges of leadership. As the situation unfolds, the interplay between these two influential figures could shape not only U.S. policy but also the future of the conservative movement, and especially the America First coalition. This could very well be the defining moment of Donald Trump’s presidency.