On the evening of June 21st, former President Donald J. Trump ordered a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran’s top nuclear facilities in an operation labeled “Midnight Hammer.” The U.S. military targeted key sites in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow using stealth bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles. Trump took to the airwaves declaring the strikes a complete success, stating the Iranian enrichment infrastructure was “totally obliterated.”
While the mainstream media focuses on the geopolitical implications and military precision of the strikes, the real political story is unfolding here at home. Trump’s decision not only marks a dramatic escalation in U.S.–Iran tensions but also stands in direct conflict with the core beliefs of many within his own political base—particularly the MAGA movement.
One of Trump’s signature campaign positions was his outspoken rejection of endless wars and foreign entanglements. He ran against the legacy of the Bush-Cheney war doctrine, criticized the Obama-era interventions, and promised to refocus American resources inward. Many of his supporters embraced that vision: secure the borders, rebuild the economy, avoid foreign wars. That anti-interventionist stance became a foundational pillar of his appeal to working-class voters, veterans, and political independents.
This latest move, however, raises serious questions about whether Trump is now contradicting the very message that fueled his rise to power. The use of military force, without congressional authorization, resembles the same establishment-driven foreign policy that Trump once condemned. Across independent conservative media, voices that once championed Trump are expressing deep concern. They are asking whether this signals a return to neoconservative influence, wrapped in different branding.
It’s also important to examine the domestic costs of this decision. Military strikes don’t exist in a vacuum. They come with financial, political, and social consequences. Defense contractors may thrive, but working families at home often suffer. As we brace for possible economic ripples—rising fuel prices, increased defense spending, and reduced attention to domestic crises—the question remains: what’s the real return on investment for the American people?
At the same time, the timing of the strike raises flags. With an election season underway, the bombing conveniently shifts national conversation away from pressing domestic concerns like housing affordability, education reform, economic instability, and healthcare access. War, historically, has served as a reset button for political narratives. The question is whether this is a strategy to reframe Trump as a wartime leader—or a calculated move to dominate the news cycle.
Now Trump’s base faces a defining moment. Do they stay loyal regardless of contradictions? Or do they hold the former president to the very principles he used to challenge the political establishment? The MAGA movement has long claimed to stand for America First. That slogan was never just about immigration or trade—it was also about rejecting the costly legacy of American empire-building overseas.
This moment is bigger than missiles. It is a test of political integrity. It is a reminder that the decisions made abroad have consequences at home. And it is a chance for voters—across party lines—to judge leadership not by bravado, but by consistency, priorities, and results.
For more political insight and analysis from an independent Black perspective, visit www.niornews.com/ and subscribe to our YouTube channel.
3 Comments
Dear Brother Jones,
Many factions within the MAGA coalition have expressed dismay over the president’s recent airstrike against Iran, condemning it as a betrayal of his promise to end “forever wars” and scale back American empire-building. But it’s difficult to understand how any of his supporters could have taken that anti-war rhetoric seriously in the first place.
Long before Trump’s re-election bid, there was ample evidence contradicting his claimed foreign policy stance. A closer look at the offensive military activities of his first administration—particularly in the Global South—revealed a sharp increase in U.S. military actions in both the Middle East and Africa. Researchers from Brown University’s Cost of War project, for instance, reported: “From 2017 through 2019, civilian deaths due to U.S. and allied forces’ airstrikes in Afghanistan dramatically increased.” They further noted that “the number of civilians killed by international airstrikes increased about 330 percent from 2016, the last full year of the Obama administration, to 2019, the most recent year for which there is complete data from the United Nations.”
Other research organizations examining the broader scope of U.S. military engagement in the region reached similar conclusions. In Yemen, U.S. drone strikes in 2017 surged by 300% compared to Obama’s final year. Syria and Iraq experienced a comparable escalation: according to the Advanced Defense and Security Platform, aerial attacks in those two countries jumped from a combined total of 6,300 in 2016 to 13,400 in 2017 following Trump’s inauguration.
I continue to be baffled by the naivete of Trump supporters who regard him as a champion of progressive or humanitarian foreign policy. A sober review of his track record on military intervention shows just how thoroughly MAGA was duped by his campaign promises. If the movement truly values “facts over feelings,” as it so often claims, it’s time it took its own advice.
Dr. Bob
You’re not wrong to bring up the data — civilian casualties did increase under Trump, particularly in Afghanistan, Yemen, and parts of the Middle East. But here’s what you’re missing: Trump was never marketed as a progressive or humanitarian. He wasn’t selling a peace dove foreign policy — he was selling restraint over regime change, America First over globalist nation-building.
The airstrike increases you cite were part of military operations already in motion — legacy programs from the Obama and Bush years. Trump inherited an empire on autopilot. The key difference? He didn’t start any new wars. No invasions. No new occupations. That alone makes his record fundamentally different from Bush in Iraq or Obama in Libya and Syria.
And when he did act — like taking out Qasem Soleimani — it was a targeted deterrent, not a declaration of war.
Let’s be honest:
Do you really think Joe Biden or Kamala Harris would’ve stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran? Of course not. In fact, they’ve given Israel a blank check — even as the majority of their own party disapproved of the mass suffering inflicted on Palestinians. And yet, this administration has overseen some of the worst humanitarian atrocities in Gaza without flinching.
Trump’s real problem isn’t just Iran — it’s the war hawks from both parties constantly pressuring him to use force. These same Republicans and Democrats have spent decades keeping America in conflict because war means power and profit.
What most people don’t know is that Trump actually tried to make a deal with Iran. At one point, he was even willing to remove U.S. recognition of Israel as a precondition just to bring Iran to the table — a move that infuriated Netanyahu. To be honest, Iran should have taken that deal — it might’ve been their best shot at peace on their terms.
So yes, if Trump moves forward with a strike on Iran in 2025, that would be a betrayal. But that’s exactly why Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and the base are pushing back now — to stop the same D.C. forces that hijacked foreign policy long before Trump ever ran.
MAGA supporters weren’t naive. They were hopeful — hopeful that Trump would resist the neoconservative pressure that has defined Washington for decades. That fight isn’t over — it’s happening right now.
You’ve correctly identified the central issue Trump supporters have yet to reckon with: his political campaign was an exercise in mass marketing. And nothing underscores that more clearly than your ongoing effort to pin the blame for today’s Middle East crisis solely on the Democratic Party.
Despite Trump’s claims that he would curb American interventionism, those claims are undermined by the inflammatory foreign policy decisions he made—and the steady military escalation he presided over during his first term. One of the most consequential of those decisions came on September 15, 2020, when Trump unveiled the so-called Abraham Accords. Marketed as the “Deal of the Century,” the agreement was hailed by Trump as a major breakthrough for peace.
But as Natan Sachs of the Center for Middle East Policy noted, the Accords were essentially a blueprint “from the perspective of the Netanyahu point of view.” No settlements would be removed, and any future Palestinian state would be a powerless patchwork of municipalities, lacking control over its borders, airspace, and basic resources—essentially a state in name only. (Source: PBS Frontline, Netanyahu, America & the Road to War in Gaza, timestamp 55:27)
You describe yourself as a staunch advocate for the Palestinian cause. Yet for all the justified criticism you level at Democrats, what’s been largely overlooked is how the Abraham Accords—hailed by Trump and Netanyahu—set the stage for the October 7th attacks, escalated regional tensions, and dealt a near-fatal blow to the already fragile prospects for a two-state solution.
Central to that deal was the status of Jerusalem. Trump’s decision to recognize the city as the capital of Israel—and move the U.S. Embassy there—ignited outrage across the Arab world. It reversed decades of U.S. policy and ignored well-established international consensus that Jerusalem’s status must be resolved through negotiation. This wasn’t just symbolic: history had already shown how sensitive the issue was. Ariel Sharon’s 2000 visit to the al-Aqsa mosque with heavily armed Israeli forces sparked the Second Intifada within hours.
In 2017, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat warned Jared Kushner that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would have “catastrophic consequences.” He was right. (Source: Times of Israel)
Trump didn’t stop there. He cut nearly all U.S. aid to the Palestinians, closed the PLO’s diplomatic office in Washington, and shuttered the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem—the de facto embassy to the Palestinians. He also unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, ramping up tensions with Tehran as part of a pressure campaign designed to isolate opponents of the Abraham Accords.
Let’s be clear: these weren’t the actions of a president resisting neoconservative pressures—they were the actions of a president catering to the two very factions you say you oppose: right-wing Zionists seeking to end the Palestinian liberation struggle, and Christian nationalists in the U.S. who invoke “America First” to justify dismantling civil rights gains at home.
When we assess how the world has come to the brink of a regional—and potentially global—war, we must acknowledge that Trump lit the fuse. He deliberately broke with decades of bipartisan foreign policy consensus that a lasting peace in the Middle East must begin with recognition of the Palestinian right to a free and sovereign homeland.
No marketing slogan, no spin about “restraint,” can erase that record. And no amount of hope can excuse Trump supporters for such a willful act of self-deception.