Staff ReportsThe ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has not only ignited violence in the Middle East but also sparked a fierce debate within the American conservative movement, particularly among those who have long rallied behind the “America First” doctrine. What was once a unified front under President Trump’s leadership has fractured, as influential voices like Tucker Carlson openly challenge Trump’s approach to the crisis. This schism reveals the deeper philosophical struggle over what it truly means to put America first in a world rife with threats and instability.
Tucker Carlson, now a leading media figure outside of Fox News, has been relentless in his criticism of U.S. support for Israel’s military actions against Iran. He contends that America’s decades-long policy of funding and arming Israel has made the United States complicit in the current escalation. Carlson’s argument is that true “America First” principles demand restraint and a refusal to be drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict. He has gone so far as to label fellow conservatives who support military action “warmongers,” lumping together media personalities and lawmakers who believe in a strong deterrent posture against Iran.
This rhetoric, however, misrepresents the conservative tradition of peace through strength. For decades, the right has understood that American security is best preserved not by retreating from the world, but by projecting power and supporting allies who share our values. Carlson’s isolationist stance ignores the reality that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat not only to Israel but to America and its interests globally. History has shown that appeasement and withdrawal invite aggression, not peace.
President Trump, for his part, has forcefully rejected Carlson’s critique. As the architect of the modern “America First” movement, Trump insists that he alone defines its meaning. He has made clear that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is unacceptable and that American support for Israel is both a strategic necessity and a moral imperative. Trump’s willingness to consider all options—including military force—reflects a sober understanding that deterrence is sometimes the only language rogue regimes understand. His critics on the right may claim this is a betrayal of his anti-war campaign promises, but they forget that Trump’s foreign policy has always been about prioritizing American safety and global stability.
The stakes could not be higher. As Israeli and Iranian missiles rain down, civilians on both sides are suffering. Humanitarian organizations, such as the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, are stepping up to provide aid, but the underlying threat remains: a nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and embolden America’s adversaries. Now is not the time for division or for second-guessing the necessity of American leadership. The lesson of history is clear—weakness invites chaos, and unity is essential when confronting existential threats.
In the end, this debate over the soul of the America First movement is about more than personalities or political factions. It is about whether the United States will continue to lead in a dangerous world or retreat into a false sense of security. The conservative movement must remember that strength, resolve, and moral clarity are not relics of the past—they are the foundation of American greatness. As the world watches, conservatives should stand firm behind the principles that have kept America safe and free, rather than succumb to the siren song of isolationism that has failed time and again.
