When Donald Trump ordered the joint US-Israeli assault on Iran last Saturday, he did so knowing it would test the limits of his political alliance. What he may not have fully calculated was how quickly the fractures would become public, and how loudly some of his most prominent backers would make themselves heard.
The United States and Israel launched coordinated military operations against Iran on 28 February 2026, targeting the regime's nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, and leadership, after Washington and Jerusalem concluded that diplomacy had been exhausted. Codenamed Operation Roaring Lion by Israel and Epic Fury by the US Department of Defense, the campaign targeted key officials, military commanders, and facilities, and is explicitly aimed at regime change. Six American service members have been killed since the strikes began on Saturday.
Speaking in the White House's East Room, Trump said the US military projected that the operation in Iran could take four to five weeks but has "the capability to go far longer than that." The White House's stated rationale is that Iran refused to engage seriously with nuclear negotiations after a previous round of US strikes last June. Trump cited Operation Midnight Hammer, in which the US "obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," saying the administration "warned them never to resume" and "sought repeatedly to make a deal" before Iran refused.
The strategic implications are significant for Australia and the broader Indo-Pacific. A widening conflict in the Persian Gulf directly threatens oil supply routes critical to the region, and any sustained instability risks drawing in actors with interests in Australia's trading neighbourhood. From a national security perspective, the precedent set by a US president launching major combat operations without congressional authorisation is one Canberra will be watching carefully.
The most striking political development to emerge from the first days of the conflict has been the revolt inside Trump's own coalition. In an interview with ABC News chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl, former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson condemned the joint US-Israel attack on Iran as "absolutely disgusting and evil," and suggested it will have a significant effect on Trump's political movement, saying, "This is going to shuffle the deck in a profound way." Carlson had reportedly sought to talk Trump out of going to war with Iran, according to the New York Times.
Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire wrote that he supports military action "if it directly serves the interests of American citizens," adding that he found it troubling that the arguments for the Iran war "seem to revolve primarily around 'bringing freedom to the Iranian people.'" He argued that "the freedom of Iranians is not our responsibility" and that losing a single American life in service of that goal "will be a travesty." Walsh noted the campaign began without congressional approval.
Alex Jones, whose Infowars platform spent years amplifying Trump's anti-interventionist messaging, described the war as a "gigantic problem," telling his audience: "This is supposed to be America first. We're not supposed to be running around doing this anymore." On Steve Bannon's War Room podcast, the Iran strikes were described as "an open betrayal" of Trump's base, with one guest arguing that Trump had received poor guidance before launching the operation.
The backlash carries a particular irony given Trump's history. Trump built his political career on a promise to avoid foreign wars, and in 2011 he predicted that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran "in order to get elected" and because "he has absolutely no ability to negotiate." Those posts have resurfaced widely in recent days. Trump explicitly ran as the anti-war candidate; the White House now argues he still is, claiming he always exhausts diplomacy before acting and that projecting overwhelming force is itself a path to lasting peace.
That argument has a serious case behind it, and it deserves fair examination. Washington and Jerusalem concluded that diplomacy had been exhausted and that a nuclear-armed Iran posed an unacceptable security threat. Trump had pledged to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, a position he reiterated in his State of the Union speech, warning that Iran would "soon" have missiles that could reach the US. For those who accept the administration's threat assessment, a pre-emptive strike to eliminate that capability is a coherent, if high-risk, strategic choice.
The polling tells its own story, however. A CNN poll found that 59% of Americans disapprove of the initial decision to strike Iran, with strong disapproval roughly doubling strong approval. A Washington Post poll found Americans opposing the strikes 52% to 39%, with opponents considerably more passionate in their views. The unpopularity of the strikes is driven heavily by political independents, who oppose them by roughly two to one. Congressional Democrats have hammered the White House for neglecting to seek congressional authorisation before taking military action.
A majority of Americans, 56%, say they see long-term military conflict between the US and Iran as at least somewhat likely. That concern is not irrational. The conflict has already damaged air hubs, rocked densely populated areas, and disrupted oil shipments. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz has resulted in the disruption of global oil and gas shipments, a development with immediate and serious consequences for Australia's energy supply chains and commodity export markets.
What this episode reveals is a genuine tension at the heart of the America First project. The isolationist wing of the Republican coalition was always in uneasy alliance with the national security hawks who also backed Trump, and the Iran strikes have forced that contradiction into the open. The White House may ultimately be proved right that decisive force was necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. But the manner in which the decision was made, without congressional authorisation and over the loud objections of key allies within Trump's own movement, raises questions about accountability and process that transcend partisan lines. For Australia, with its alliance obligations and its deep economic ties to the Gulf region, the next few weeks will demand close and sober attention.