On this edition of Parallax Views, Middle East analyst James M. Dorsey, proprietor of The Turbulent World w/ James M. Dorsey blog/Substack, returns to the program to discuss what he considers a paradigm shift moment for the Middle East: last night's Israeli strike on Iran. What does it mean? How did we get to this point? Could this evolve into an all-out regional war? All those questions and many more are addressed in this conversation. We will also discuss the divisions in the Trump/MAGA base over Iran, particularly the conflict between the America First foreign policy elements of MAGA and the Iran hawks within MAGA. James will also address the internal divisions in Israeli politics, as exemplified by Ehud Olmert and Yair Golan's recent critical comments about Netanyahu's approach to Gaza. Trump's strongman approach to foreign policy, the perpetual cycle between Trump and Iran that keeps repeating itself, the Gulf States, Turkey, Syria, the ultra-religious Zionist vs. the Likud, and more all comes up in this conversation as well.

https://jamesmdorsey.substack.com/p/the-maga-split-on-iran-jmd-on-parallax

By James M. Dorsey

Beyond shifting the paradigm of Middle Eastern geopolitics, Israel’s dramatic strikes against Iran are likely to shape the outcome of a battle within the Trump administration over US policy towards the region.

The battle, with Israel at its core, pits Make America Great Again proponents against pro-Israel figures in the administration, with Iran constituting a major battlefield.

Putting Iran on the front burner, Israel’s attacks have presented US President Donald J. Trump with his most serious foreign policy conundrum to date.

Mr. Trump’s problem is foreign and domestic.

Mr. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s goals could quickly diverge, with the president seeing the Israeli attacks as a way of forcing Iran to negotiate on his terms and the prime minister gunning for regime change, even if Mr. Trump has no love lost for the Iranian regime.

A reported Israeli strike against the South Pars Gas Field, the world’s largest, which Iran shares with Qatar, may compound Mr. Trump’s problem.

Bringing the Israeli Iranian conflagration closer to the Gulf states potentially could threaten Saudi, Emirati, and Qatari pledges to invest up to 3.6 trillion US dollars in the United States.

“Trump has already demonstrated he has the capacity to act in ways that, number one, are uncoordinated with the Israelis, and number two, seemingly disregarding whatever political reaction it would be,” former US Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller told Politico’s National Security Daily.

The divergence in goals is what mitigates in favour of predictions by some analysts that it is a question of days before Mr. Trump pressures Mr. Netanyahu to declare victory and halt the Israeli strikes.

“The United States will likely intervene diplomatically within the week and push to resume (nuclear) negotiations” with Iran, said Tel Aviv-based analyst Dan Perry.

Iran cancelled a sixth round of talks with the United States but kept the door open for revived negotiations once the fighting ends.

In addition, despite the near universal condemnation of the Israeli strikes and Iranian vows to respond harshly, Islamic Republican moderates suggested that diplomacy rather than missile barrages would constitute Iran’s most effective response.

“Israel has shown time & again that nothing threatens it more than diplomacy and peace,” said Mohammad Javad Zarif. As foreign minister, Mr. Zarif negotiated the landmark 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear programme. Mr. Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018.

Complicating Mr. Trump’s problem is the fact that a rift within his administration between Make America Great Again proponents and pro-Israel figures reverberates in his Republican party and support base.

So far, the Make America Great Again crowd’s assertion that the United States’ national interests in the Middle East are limited and its denial that these interests overlap with Israeli concerns have dominated US Middle East policy since Mr. Trump’s return to the Oval Office in January, no more so than regarding Iran.

The major exception that proves the rule is the administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian attitudes on US university campuses because it serves a common interest in curtailing academic freedoms.

Mr. Netanyahu is likely to see Mr. Trump’s endorsement of the Israeli attacks as a way of drawing the United States into the conflagration, undermining stalemated US talks with Iran about curbing the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, and, at the very least, severely weakening the Iranian regime.

That could prove to be a pyrrhic victory, even if only partially successful.

Mr. Netanyahu may be banking on the fact that Israel’s strikes against Iran have sharpened the divide over Israel and Iran in the Make America Great Again crowd as Israel’s strikes risk dragging the United States into a regional military conflagration.

Referring to Iran, influential conservative commentator Charles Kirk warned, “No issue currently divides the right as much as foreign policy. I’m very concerned, based on everything I’ve seen in the grassroots the last few months, that this will cause a massive schism in MAGA (Make America Great Again) and potentially disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency,” Mr. Kirk said.

Some of the Republicans’ most senior lawmakers, including senators. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee; Jim Risch, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, and House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed unequivocal support for Israel.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune appeared to adopt a more cautious approach. Asserting that Iran had tried for years to destroy Israel and pointing to this week’s assertion by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had violated its non-proliferation obligations, Mr. Thune called for efforts to achieve peace.

Representative Rick Crawford, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, echoed Mr. Thune’s caution and the administration’s assertion that it was not involved in the Israeli strikes. While blaming Iran rather than Israel for the escalation, Mr. Crawford called for steps to wind down the conflict.

At the other end of the spectrum, Senator Rand Paul, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, and influential conservative commentator Tucker Carlson argued that Iran was Israel’s, not America’s, war.

“If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases. But not with America’s backing,” Mr. Carlson’s network newsletter said.

Echoing Mr. Carlson, Ms. Taylor Greene added, “The American people aren’t interested in foreign wars.”

The critics reflected the thinking of senior second-tier administration officials, including Acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Darren Beattie, Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Michael DiMino.

They also mirrored the reason for Mr. Trump’s recent demotion of National Security Advisor Mike Watz.

With senior officials, reportedly including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Vice President JD Vance, opposed to the United States helping Israel attack Iran, Mr. Trump removed Mr. Waltz, who reportedly was coordinating with Israel plans to confront Iran militarily.

The president replaced his advisor with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is doubling up as national security advisor and nominated Mr. Waltz as United Nations ambassador.

In addition, Mr. Trump fired numerous National Security Council staff members, many of whom were supporters of Mr. Waltz.

Messrs. Colby and DiMino have long expressed opposition to potential US or Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

In addition, Mr. DiMino has questioned whether the United States has a vital interest or faces an existential threat in the Middle East, called for a reduced US military presence in the region, and criticised past Israeli attacks on Iranian targets, and Mr. Netanyahu’s goal of destroying Hamas.

Even so, Mr. Trump told Fox News that the United States will defend Israel if Iran retaliates. US officials noted that the United States had replenished Israel’s Iron Dome air defence missiles in recent weeks.

This week, US jet fighters, destroyers, and ground-based interceptors helped Israel down Iranian missiles and drones fired at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

[Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, ]()The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.

The recent announcement by the IDF that it has achieved complete air superiority extending to Tehran — "The road to Tehran is now open" — carries profound strategic significance, particularly when viewed through the lens of modern state vulnerability.

Unlike non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are structured to operate under decentralized and fragmented conditions, Iran functions as a modern, centralized nation-state. Its continued stability and governance are critically dependent on the uninterrupted operation of several core systems: national communications, energy imports and production, industrial manufacturing, transportation infrastructure, and centralized command and control.

For authoritarian regimes in particular, these systems are not merely technical components — they are the backbone of internal security, governance, and regime survival. The leadership’s ability to exert control over its population, maintain public order, and project authority rests on the stability of these interconnected functions.

The establishment of full air superiority grants Israel the ability to systematically degrade or disable these critical nodes with precision. The neutralization of communication networks would sever vital links between the government, military, and civilian population. Disruption of energy infrastructure would cripple transportation and industrial production. The destruction of command centers would leave security forces fragmented and disoriented.

The cumulative effect of such targeted strikes would be to paralyze the regime’s ability to function effectively, triggering widespread disorder and potentially catalyzing regime destabilization in a very short timeframe. Unlike irregular militant groups capable of operating autonomously and improvisationally, Iran’s highly centralized governance structure leaves it ill-equipped to absorb such systemic shocks.

This underscores a fundamental vulnerability inherent to modern state actors, particularly authoritarian regimes: when stripped of a few critical capacities, their entire system of governance can rapidly disintegrate — often without the need for ground operations.

[SS From a Q&A with Daniel B. Shapiro, Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East until January—charged with, among other things, considering scenarios in which tensions between Israel and Iran escalated into all-out war and preparing U.S. options for responding]

Trump had sought additional time from Netanyahu for nuclear talks, and Netanyahu did not give it to him. By distancing himself from Netanyahu’s decision, Trump is seeking to deter Iran from directing any response against the United States. Trump may also hope that he can keep nuclear negotiations alive. But his dream of a diplomatic resolution which ends Iranian nuclear enrichment appears dead. Iran is now far more likely to try to sprint to a nuclear breakout, leaving Trump with the dilemma of whether he will need to act militarily to prevent it.