Understanding the MAGA Iran Split: Trump Versus the Idealogues.

Trump is the least ideological figure in the US Presidency since Washington.

In my last Substack I described my response to Israel’s attack on Iran and some of the criticism of that attack coming from the alleged Right. Part of that article mentioned Tucker Carlson and his increasingly strident demands that Trump should distance the US administration from Israel’s actions.

In Carlson’s narrative, which has been expanded and repeated since my last comments, Trump is being influenced by malign forces to go to another unnecessary and disastrous war. But rather than my summary, here is Tucker’s own explanation:

The Tucker position, which is shared by Steve Bannon, is a very simple one: this is a foreign war identical with every neocon perpetual war, it’s dangerous, it’s unnecessary, and it’s sponsored by malign forces against true US interests.

Tucker has asked how it is ‘America First’ to engage in this foreign war after all the other expensive pointless war disasters, and Trump bluntly replied that since he invented the phrase America First he gets to decide how it applies. But Trump’s more specific point on the Israeli-Iran conflict is an even more blunt denial of Tucker’s doom laden analysis. There could hardly be a more direct hit of what we might call Tuckersonian isolationism than this:

So on the surface level then both attitudes are very simple reductions-in the Tuckerverse, helping Israel means falling for another disastrous perpetual war, huge expense, no gain, pointless slaughter, and Trump as Netanyahu’s unwitting puppet serving Wicked Jew interests. To be fair to Tucker, he’s not quite crude enough to put it that way so far as the Wicked Jew point goes-he will just enable the likes of Darryl Cooper and describe the entire failed US Middle East approach of the last 30 years as a malign construct serving an Israeli/Netanyahu Master Plan.

In other words, Tucker will support the same interpretation of all this that comes from openly rabid Jew haters, in slightly more disguised and demure language.

And Trump’s position is just as simple. In the Trumpverse Iran was just about to complete the creation of 15 nuclear bombs, and that simply cannot be allowed to happen given the nature of the Iranian regime and the expressed, explicit desire of Iranian leaders to destroy not just Israel, but the US too.

Many of those MAGA supporters who favour alternative media and have done so for a considerable time tend to side with Carlson on this and see the Israel-Hamas-Iran series of conflicts as simply another iteration of the neocon perpetual wars of the military industrial complex. Trump loyalists in MAGA unite with more Establishment Republicans for the first time in a long time in seeing the Israeli strikes on Iran as necessary and the argument for US intervention as much clearer than the one that applies in the case of Ukraine.

It should be noted that there is a difference too, or crossed purposes, in what kind of intervention we are talking about. The Tucker demand for zero support for Israel is not just based on opposing the series of neocon wars and interventions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, it is based on apparently assuming that US involvement and support would inevitably follow the same template and trajectory as those prior conflicts. Trump loyalists however would no doubt be quicker to realise and acknowledge that Trump is very unlikely to authorise US ground forces, or to need to, since merely helping with some aspects of the air war is likely to achieve Israeli aims.

That is, the nightmare scenario Tucker’s view is predicated on is an exact repetition of, say, Iraq, or Afghanistan. US boots on the ground, US military deaths, 20-25 years of engagement in a quagmire, trillions of spending, and either anarchy or humiliation as the end result. But this ignores that none of that is actually on the table or being requested by Israel or suggested by Trump.

The vehement loathing of Israel coming from some sections of the Right seems based on three things-the conspiracy theory that every ME conflict was orchestrated by Israel, rabid hatred of Jews that makes such a theory convincing to those who are already schooled in Wicked Jew thinking, and a deep psychological impact from 20 years of failed military adventurism under neocon foreign policy guidance. Not everyone who opposes further interventions has all of these elements, but certainly those who frame Netanyahu as the Villain of the Peace (deliberate error) do.

As an aside, I personally believe that Mark Levin’s statement that the word neocon is code for Jews is hysterical and false, since I myself have repeatedly used the term (and many others have) with no such intent. And I admit it is possible that Tucker believes the absurd notion that every US action was determined by Netanyahu in a bizarre manner that is innocent of underlying Jew hatred. But when you take all of Tucker’s recent elements collectively-the belief that Israel is a uniquely malign manipulator, the focus on Levin as a Jewish advocate of Israel’s actions, the championing of Holocaust denier Darryl Cooper, the belief that US foreign policy has been a Zionist Israeli plot-there comes a point where one must stop giving Tucker the benefit of the doubt.

Because the principled anti-war stance (together with the rational and pragmatic distaste for prior failed policy) does seem, at this moment, highly focused on Israel, to the point of siding with the preservation and protection of an Islamic theocratic regime that had repeatedly and explicitly made it plain that it would deploy a nuke against the US if it ever had the opportunity to do so.

So Tucker’s nightmare scenario does seem to come in two parts. Not just that the US will repeat the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. But also that the US has been the dupe and victim, and is about to be again, of the Wicked Zionist Jew. The first part of course is a rational fear that must be treated as such, and the second part of course is an irrational prejudice that must be treated as such. And it’s very, very hard to extricate one from the other in the kind of analysis that Tucker is now presenting. And really this is the case with many other people who initially presented as opponents of pointless war, perpetual war, Washington corruption, and neocon military disasters.

Since Israel has been forced by the enemy to take the battle against Islamic fundamentalism very seriously, since Israel has been and would be the first target of those who also hate us, Israeli forces have become the active spearpoint thrusting at the entire network of Iranian sponsored evil, and finally at the heart of Iran itself. But Israel’s defensive and retaliatory measures, including the need to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, have been described by both the Right and Left in the West as if these were inexplicable violent actions that arise from no legitimate cause. The Left has framed them as colonialism, imperialism and genocide. The Right (those parts subject to Jew hatred or those parts schooled in thinking everything has a hidden cause) has framed them as Zionist plots entangling the US in Israeli regional dominance schemes. The kind of Right that Tucker represents retroactively reframe US blunders as Zionist manipulation, as if 25 years ago Israelis said ‘OK the way we get to defeat our Middle East enemies is via 25 years of the US messing up the fight for us and getting absolutely nowhere. That will waste our allies money and commitment to us for no reason, then we will do all the really hard work ourselves while being hated for it’.

I hope the above indicates just how illogical and absurd all this is. The timeline is not that Israel had a Master Plan that expended and wasted US power in Iraq and Afghanistan for no gain and that somehow put Israel in a stronger position to attack Iran today. The timeline is that the US itself chose a series of unnecessary wars going in the wrong direction that wasted time, lives, money and effort, while an Israel forced to recognise that Hamas would never stop being genocidal towards it then had to dismantle the entire Iranian network built while the US was tilting at windmills elsewhere. Far from manipulating the US into Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel under Sharon warned against prior neocon military interventions in the wrong direction, at a time when Tucker Carlson was publicly backing the Iraq Wars.

My purpose here though is not to write an article in praise of Israeli efficiency in targeting Iran compared with US incompetence in targeting Iraq, nor even to present a justification of Israel’s actions. For me those justifications are obvious (response to October 7th in the Hamas phase, response to imminent Iranian nuclear missile capacity in the Iran phase) and glaring. My purpose here is to understand why Trump and Tucker now differ, which seems a smaller purpose but describes a bigger political chasm. Because it applies to more than just Tucker and even more than just the MAGA split on Israel and Iran.

It applies to every misinterpretation of Trump ever advocated.

If we see someone who we think shares our principles taking a very purist line on an issue, we call them an idealist. We recognise that they are working by an ideal template that might not entirely fit reality, but we sort of admire them for doing so. We can use the word idealist negatively, as unrealistic, but generally we mean it positively, because at worst, even when he is wrong, we think of the idealist as hopeful, principled, desirous of changes that would do good and acting by a vision which we agree is a positive one.

But if we see someone of opposite or different principles enacting the exact same degree of purity on an issue, we call them an ideologue. We don’t share the same End Vision, or the same abstract principles, so it’s easier to see these departures from reality and context as malign, insane, and worthless. In the case of an ideologue, we are recognising that this person functions by abstract principles that have become both fixed and inflexible, and which don’t accord with reality.

Now those of us on the Right who agreed with Recent Tucker (the Tucker who opposed pointless wars) but disagree with Very Recent Tucker (the Tucker who thinks the latest war and all the rest are a Zionist Plot) have not changed OUR principles and are not, I think, at odds with reality. Old Tucker (who supported the Second Iraq War, worked in mainstream media, hated Trump and was a CIA child who trusted the CIA) was wrong, and Very Recent Tucker (who opposes Israeli action in Iran and who thinks ALL wars are a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) is ALSO wrong.

But look at those changes over time. Tucker has changed his position in fundamental ways. In the beginning he was pure mainstream. Now he is pure alternative. In the middle period he was a Trump populist. This isn’t consistency of principles or even consistency of understanding. But perversely it is consistency of character. Throughout each change, each phase, Tucker has been a purist of the phase he currently inhabits.

Super CIA, ra ra ra until the moment of revelation “Wait, the organisation my Dad worked for has done all these wicked things, the organisation I grew up, that I knew had good guys like my Dad, THAT organisation….well, damn, that blew me away!”

Super Anti Trump “I LOATHE him! Trump is nuts! He’s gone crazy with these election claims!” Until the moment of revelation “I suddenly saw, this guy had been fighting all that, this guy had been risking his life for his country, you know, and he’s been right, all along, he was right, I was wrong. That blew me away!”

Apparently uninterested in Israel until the moment of revelation, provided by Jew haters, “So if you look at all the failed wars what do you see, who benefits, who is taking it forward now? It’s the Israelis, right? It benefits them. All of it. Once I saw that, it blew me away!”.

Now, for honesty just in case anyone mistakes the above, those are not Tucker quotes. But they very easily could be, because they are based on the way Tucker talks and thinks and I have written them in the style of his thought and speech. And I don’t even intend this as an anti Tucker rant of any kind. Ultimately I feel pity for Tucker, where I briefly felt respect. Because I don’t think Tucker is necessarily a bad person. I do think he’s been very right at times (on Washington Elites, on the fentanyl crisis, on D.C. corruption). And I do think he’s been very wrong at times, wrong in ways that actively help evil (on Jews, on Israel, on Qatari ‘innocence’, on opposing dealing with Iran, on this new disillusionment with Trump).

Tucker isn’t evil, per se, except in a Useful Idiot way that can be 90% of what evil is without being consciously or knowingly malign. Tucker is an idealist, a purist, an ideologue. He wants an explanation, and he’s grateful every time he is given one. That’s why he’s so jolly and uncritical and unenquiring with his guests. That’s why his interviews became this circus parade, sometimes showing us genuine strong men or real mental dexterity from a good choice of guest, and just as often, increasingly more often, putting forward a freak as an authority or excusing an evil scumbag for a pay packet. But Tucker was born rich and isn’t, I think, particularly corrupt. He’s not in this for the money.

He’s in it for the purity. He’s a Lost Soul, a Right Wing Hippy, a sockless wanderer who just wants Everything to Make Sense. I get out in nature. I hunt. I fish. I love my country. That makes me normal, right? But it’s all recreational. Tucker wants to live like Common People….on a multi million dollar private estate version of the Simple Things. He’s not wicked, he’s a genial empty vessel disappointed with the last Truth, and excited by the Next Truth. He’s gone through versions of the Right like a Leftist heiress going through versions of the Left, always looking for the Therapist that Works.

Trump isn’t like this, Trump has never been like this. Trump is not looking for the Perfect Ideological Fit. He has it already, and it’s called America. Trump has almost zero ideological content. He’s all indomitable self belief and very simple patriotism. It’s expressed almost entirely in the two main slogans of his life in politics. America First, and Make America Great Again. That’s it. He means both, and there is nothing else attached to either. He’s not a Zionist. He’s not an Anti Zionist. He’s not a Democrat. He’s not a Republican. He’s not a Free Trade Fetishist, and he’s not a Crazy Lunatic. He’s not a lover of NATO, and he’s not a servant of the UN. He’s not a Conspiracy Theorist, and he’s not an Establishment Stooge. He’s not Perfect, and he’s not a Monster.

He’s a pragmatist in an age of mad Ideas.

Those of us on the Right who had a period of respect for Tucker, like Tucker, and like Trump, noted that the Democrat Party had gone insane. We noticed them becoming crazy ideologues. It wasn’t difficult to spot. Genitally mutilating children as a new industry? Importing savage rapists and cartel gang members and calling it the American Dream? Letting fentanyl flood in or letting the pharmaceutical industry poison an entire generation and force dangerous experiments on everyone? Taking away free speech? Turning a scumbag thug like George Floyd into a martyr and Saint? Rigging elections? Saying all white people are born evil and calling that anti racism? Saying that men are women? Building trillions in debt while funding trans opera in Guatemala? Bombing Iraq on false WMD claims and pushing for nuclear war with Russia?

Most of those made it very obvious to anyone capable of thought and reason that the mainstream has gone mad, that the media were and are activist lying partisans, that the respectable was no longer worthy of respect because it had itself become a kind of extremism. And Tucker, bless his Lost and wandering soul, was right when he stumbled onto that particular revelation.

He just didn’t have enough substance in himself to refuse the Next Revelation, to tell when a new friend is talking shit or when an old argument doesn’t apply in a fresh context. What does Trump have that Tucker doesn’t?

He knows an Iran with a nuke is a fucking stupid idea.

Trump’s lack of ideology, his simplicity, his hard headed, totally pragmatic, completely common sense grounding in reality and innate character deep, DNA deep distrust of bullshit can be deceived by flattery and deception from people he has mistaken for allies, as it was by COVID architects of evil. But generally it gives a much better guide than ANY ideological construct does.

Trump is not an ideological purist. He’s a pragmatic common sense patriot. In many ways, and ironically, it makes him more moderate than anyone else, both those who have always hated him, and those who switch between love and disillusionment. They are judging by ideals and emotion, whereas Trump functions by common sense and results.

Look at Trump’s critics including wildly divergent ones and they are always idealists rather than pragmatists, and this includes those who Oppose All Wars and those who Support All Wars. It even includes most of those who enrich themselves. Even the corrupt are generally corrupt ideologues, whose Abstract Principles and arcane theories matter to them. Soros is not just a crook. He is a believer. An Open Society, Open Borders fanatic. Obama wasn’t just a crook. He was genuinely a Marxist (all Marxists have always been able to exclude their own property and wealth from the equation). Climate Change is not just a grift, it’s also a Cult. Globalists aren’t just purchased national traitors, they believe the insane abstractions they force on others. Even Establishment Conservatives who fetishise NATO, howl for more Ukraine intervention, or went wild with grief when Trump used tariffs, do so because the 1945 settlement, the rules based international order, the mantra of Free Trade, the Cold War thinking and the Russophobia, have all become respectable fixations, ideological identity props, and part of an Abstract Whole.

Trump has just one abstraction, one ideology. America. The USA and the obvious interests of most of its people is the sum of his ideology. A war with Russia over Ukraine, nuclear exchange? Are you fucking NUTS? How does that benefit the US? Russia already has nukes. Be a bit more realistic.

A war to prevent Iran getting nukes? The Iran that says Death to America? Someone else is doing the fighting for us? They are doing it well? We aren’t wasting money and we get people who would nuke us removed and that threat ended? And you oppose that….are you fucking NUTS?

This is why Trump called Tucker a kook. Trump is not a sockless wanderer. Trump knows where he stands. He isn’t on a rightwing version of a Hippy journey of self discovery, like Carlson is. He doesn’t judge anything by abstract principles and an entire portmanteau worldview handed to him by others. Whether you are a radical Leftist, an alternative Rightist, a rich Globalist or a traditional Conservative, you are applying a whole set of fixed attitudes Trump doesn’t share. And the alternative viewpoint can become, has become, just as fixed, ideological and inflexible as the mainstream it initially rebelled against.

To think that every intervention is noble, and to think that every intervention is corrupt, is to be in one sense the same person, an ideologue. A purist living by abstractions. You aren’t looking at causes, contexts, and consequences. Your general abstract principle explains it all for you. Trump meanwhile is looking at the real world directly, with only one abstract applied-does this make America safer, stronger, richer, or doesn’t it? Would a common sense person want Iran to have nukes? The simplicity of a pragmatist is nearly always smarter than the sophistication of an idealist.

Don’t tell me what the fuck to do based on your worldview, your general abstract theory. Tell me what is actually happening. Tell me what it takes, what it costs, what it risks, what it delivers. In concrete terms referring to real things, not abstract terms referring to general principles. Trump won’t go to war for Democracy, but he can see that stopping Iran having nukes makes perfect sense.

And he can see too that providing a 30,000 pound Mother of All Bombs to take out the key Iranian nuclear weapon site makes more sense than 20 years patrolling the sand, flies and shit of Afghanistan made.