- Статьи
- World
- They swear sweetly: the conflict between Israel and Iran has divided the US Republican Party
They swear sweetly: the conflict between Israel and Iran has divided the US Republican Party
A split is growing in Trump's large camp, the MAGA (Make America Great Again) coalition. Some of the president's supporters are dismayed by his words about his willingness to intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran. Many of those who unconditionally supported the head of state now disagree with him. Congress has already drafted a bill, supported by both parties, that effectively prohibits the president from attacking the Islamic Republic. The position of the Trumpists, who do not want to participate in a new war, coincides with the opinion of their ideological opponents from the left wing of the Democratic Party. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Against the war
"This is not our war. If this were not the case, Congress would have to make decisions on such issues in accordance with the Constitution," said Thomas Massie, a member of the US House of Representatives from the Republican Party, who registered a bill that prohibits the US president from using American armed forces against Iran.
The document was co-authored by Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna, who is considered the most consistent supporter of the idol of the American left, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of illegal aggression and violation of international law.
The senator from Vermont, a Jew by nationality, again demanded that Israel be deprived of American financial and military assistance.
Thus, this initiative comes from representatives of the two main parties in the United States. At the same time, we are talking about a special type of resolution, the implementation of which, if approved by Congress, is mandatory.
This is not the first such initiative in the American Congress. Earlier, Bernie Sanders introduced a bill that would ban "the use of federal funding for any use of military force against Iran in the absence of special congressional authorization." His proposal was supported by fellow party members, in particular Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Separately, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine presented his draft resolution. The document calls for preventing Washington's involvement in a military conflict with Iran without congressional approval.
The Massey–Hannah initiative may also be supported by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Green, who was previously considered a staunch Trumpist. She criticized any possible interference by Washington in Israel's conflict with Iran.
In particular, she reminded Donald Trump of his promise made during the election campaign: then he spoke about the desire to "end wars, not start them." For Taylor-Green, this is the first time she has criticized an American leader.
The Crumbling Coalition
First, entrepreneur Elon Musk publicly quarreled with Donald Trump, unhappy with the president's plans to raise the national debt ceiling and talking about the president's "authoritarian ways."
After that, the American leader was criticized by well-known journalist Tucker Carlson, who opposed a possible US strike on Iran. In his videos, he condemned the president for his intention to involve Washington in a new conflict. The correspondent has no doubt that the war in Iran could be as much a trap for the United States as the Iraq conflict.
Tucker was supported by Trump's former strategic adviser, the former head of his first election campaign, Stephen Bannon, who is considered an important isolationist leader for the head of state.
At the same time, there are those in the Republican camp who call for helping Israel, believing that without decisive pressure on Iran, the country will remain one-on-one with the IRGC.
What do the experts think
Dmitry Suslov, Deputy director of the Central Committee of the Higher School of Economics, in an interview with Izvestia, noted that initially the Trump administration considered Israeli strikes on Iran as a means of forcing Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment on its own territory. According to him, initially Trump preferred a diplomatic settlement and a deal with Iran, but the negotiations reached an impasse.
— The question arose about the direct participation of the United States in strikes against Iran in order to destroy those centers that Israel is not ready to eliminate. Moreover, the United States released the genie from the bottle, because it immediately became obvious that Israel's goal was not only and not so much to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, but to provoke the fall of the Islamic Republic altogether," the political scientist believes.
All this split the Republican Party and the Trump administration, the expert emphasized.
"There is nothing new in this split, because on foreign policy issues, both the so—called Trump coalition, his administration, and the Republican Party, on the one hand, consist of old Reaganist neoconservatives who advocate a hegemonic foreign policy, continued interference everywhere, and forceful regime change," the expert explained.
The Americanist added that this wing is represented by senators such as Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and many other representatives of the Republican elite who would like the United States to continue its Bush Jr. policy during the invasion of Iraq and regime change by force.
On the other hand, there are Trumpists who advocate a more restrained foreign policy. Some of them are very close to isolationists, the expert emphasized.
— After all, Trumpists say that it is unacceptable and erroneous to pursue a policy of regime change, that American intervention abroad should be limited in general, that in no case should one interfere in other people's wars, that the situation around Iran is a situation alien to the United States. They say that the United States should focus on the main thing, and the main thing for them is the fight against China," Suslov is sure.
The analyst believes that for them, the very idea of using the American armed forces to change regimes is deeply erroneous, counterproductive, and immediately resembles the policy of the Bush administration, which, from their point of view, was extremely destructive and harmful.
— The wrong policy is US interference in other people's wars, joining other people's wars, this is fraught with being dragged once again into the Middle East swamp, and they advocate withdrawal from this, strongly oppose the involvement of the United States in this war, especially with the Israeli, no longer concealed, officially proclaimed agenda of regime change in Iran- says Suslov .
The Americanist said that this puts the Trump administration in a rather difficult position, because in fact, those neoconservatives who support regime change are opponents of Trump.
— They hate him, they would like to get rid of him and weaken his position in every possible way. They would like to return the Republican Party to the situation of Bush Jr. and Ronald Reagan. For them, Trump is a symbol of wrong development," he stressed.
The political scientist noted that Trump's real allies are precisely the MAGA Republicans, who are against the policy of regime change, against interfering in other people's wars and plunging the United States into the "Middle Eastern swamp."
US President Donald Trump
— That's why Trump is taking a lot of risks. If he attacks Iran, especially with the consequences of regime change and further escalation, drawing the United States into a relatively long new conflict, he will undermine the support of those who really advocate for him, his real allies, and strengthen the positions of his opponents within the Republican Party," the expert said.
According to the expert, there is nothing strange in the fact that MAGA-Republicans agree with left-wing Democrats like Bernie Sanders on this issue, because both advocate a moderate foreign policy, rejection of imperial ambitions and military intervention in the affairs of foreign states.
"On the vast majority of domestic political issues, the left—wing Democrats and the right-wing MAGA—Republicans are the fiercest opponents, but the fact that the United States should pursue a less forceful, less aggressive, less imperial foreign policy and not engage in regime change is what the left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans agree on," he concluded.
Victoria Zhuravleva, Deputy Director of the IMEMO RAS named after E.M. Primakov, head of the Center for North American Studies, believes that so far this is an individual initiative of Massey in the House of Representatives, in the Senate there is a parallel bill, purely democratic, and from the left.
— I would not immediately talk about the split among Republicans. Massey is a well—known libertarian, he is often closer to progressives than to his party, so this is not an indicator at all, his initiative is more about the balance of "president— congress" and dissatisfaction with the excessive activity of the head of state, the Americanist believes.
She added that Trumpists, on the contrary, actively declare that they believe the president, and for progressives this is a good reason to show their anti-war position.
— I would say that officially, the mainstream of both parties is still rather at a loss to determine their positions and is in no hurry at all, leaving everything to Trump. The pro—Israel lobby is important for both parties, and the electorate is also not eager to fight, most Americans, including the electorate of Donald Trump, are in favor of a peaceful settlement, the expert believes.
According to her, Trump traditionally uses public rhetoric as a tool of pressure on the parties to the conflict.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
