Lessons not learned from US war on Iraq How America’s Iran policy debate pits Trump loyalists against each other

Whether the US should join Israel’s military campaign against Iran is emerging to cause a major rift within Donald Trump’s political base, dividing the non-interventionist wing of his MAGA movement from those convinced that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

During his impromptu return from the G7 summit in Canada aboard Air Force One, Trump was asked whether he agreed with the March congressional testimony by his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who back then asserted that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. “I don’t care what she said,” Trump bluntly replied, insisting instead that Iran was “very close” to acquiring a bomb.

This high-profile disagreement between the president and one of his most senior intelligence officials over such a pivotal national security question echoes past debates on Middle Eastern conflicts in Republican administrations, particularly that surrounding the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

Dividing lines

In her March 2025 testimony, Gabbard had told lawmakers that US intelligence agencies had concluded Iran had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which was halted in 2003, even though its enriched uranium stockpile had reached unprecedented levels.

Following Trump’s recent comments, Gabbard responded by citing those enrichment levels as proof that she and the president “are on the same page” in recognizing the seriousness of the issue.

Gabbard’s appointment as DNI was controversial from the outset, due to her vocal criticism of the US foreign policy establishment and her opposition to American military interventions abroad. A veteran of the Iraq War and a former Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, Gabbard centered her campaign around ending “wasteful regime change wars” in Iraq, Libya, and the attempt in Syria, and promised back then to bring troops home from Afghanistan.

Despite her nuanced clarification, Trump’s dismissal of her sworn testimony is a striking public rebuke—and may reflect growing influence among Iran hawks inside the White House.

US Vice President JD Vance, however, has continued to defend Gabbard. After Trump said he “didn’t care” about her remarks to Congress, Vance told Fox News on June 18 that she remains “a veteran, a patriot, a loyal supporter of President Trump and a critical part of the coalition he built in 2024.”

Both Gabbard and Vance have long represented the non-interventionist wing within Trump’s orbit, advocating for a restrained foreign policy that avoids entanglements in overseas conflicts.

As Trump’s right-hand man, Vance, however, has the daunting task of juggling both sides of the political discourse, which is why he also reiterated his trust in Trump’s leadership while addressing concerns about military involvement in Iran. “And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals,” Vance wrote on X this week. “Whatever he does, that is his focus.”

“America First” camp tearing apart

The clash between Trump and Gabbard is now feeding into a broader ideological rift within the “America First” movement over whether the US should intervene in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict.

More hawkish members of Trump’s administration, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have historically advocated for military intervention when necessary. Others, including defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and allies in Congress, point, according to the BBC, to the recent finding by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for the first time in two decades as justification for strong action.

Non-interventionists, however, argue that the alarm over Iran’s nuclear capabilities is being amplified to build a case for war. Conservative figures like Tucker Carlson and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene insist the threat is being exaggerated for the sake of regime change and geopolitical adventurism.

“The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians,” Carlson wrote last week on X. “The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it.” Carlson, who famously interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin in an extensive talk after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, has remained a leading voice of anti-war conservatism.

Echoes of Iraq war

Sceptics of a potential strike on Iran, including Gabbard, frequently invoke the 2003 Iraq War as a cautionary tale. They warn that attacking Iran—a country three times larger and with double the population—would be a far greater challenge.

Back in 2003, President George W. Bush’s administration justified the invasion of Iraq by citing supposed weapons of mass destruction, based on intelligence that was ultimately discredited. According to the BBC, the failure to find such weapons, coupled with the long, costly US occupation, fuelled widespread backlash and electoral losses for Republicans.

Nine years after launching his own political career as a critic of foreign wars, Trump now faces a similar dilemma as he is considering military intervention in the Middle East—despite the assessments of his own intelligence agencies.

Even as some conservatives, such as prominent Senator Lindsey Graham, call for full regime change in Tehran, the White House appears cautious about any campaign that could resemble the large-scale invasions and nation-building missions of the past.

Still, military operations can take unpredictable turns. And while Trump operates in a different context than his Republican predecessor, the decision to heed—or ignore—the advice of intelligence leaders like Gabbard could carry consequences as far-reaching as those of 2003.

By Nazrin Sadigova