Republicans growing divide on Iran weighs on Trump as war looms

Republicans are sharply divided on what President Donald Trump’s optimal path forward should be, as Israel and Iran trade missile attacks. Even conventional war hawks are voicing concerns about committing Americans to another war in the Middle East.

Trump, this week, fueled speculation that the U.S. would enter the war on Israel’s behalf, demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” on social media and even suggesting he may kill Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel, for its part, has sought U.S. assistance, after previously insisting it could eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own.

After military entanglements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya in the past two decades, moreover, even some of the most prominent “neoconservative” voices appear inclined toward a more nuanced approach to the Iran question.

Haley: Trump should "limit his efforts"

“The US should not engage in regime change in Iran. Our focus should only be on our national security,” warned former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. The South Carolina Republican unsuccessfully sought the presidential nomination in 2024 and frequently traded barbs with Vivek Ramaswamy, who dubbed her a “neocon” and “war hawk” over her advocacy for supporting Ukraine against Russia. 

Haley, for her part, suggested that Trump limit his efforts to supporting Israel in a limited effort to dismantle nuclear facilities, saying [w]e should support Israel in eliminating the Natanz and Fordo sites to prevent the threat of an atomic bomb used against us. The Iranian people should decide who they want to be their leader. That’s their decision, not ours. Stay focused.”

Saying "no" to regime change

Other major conservative voices have lent their voices to the opposition as well. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, for instance, asserted that “[a]nyone who claims that the majority of conservative voters want the United States to fight a regime change war in the Middle East is insane or lying.”

“You might as well claim that the majority want open borders and carbon taxes. Just total lunacy. The exact opposite of the reality,” he added.

“The only tangible thing the West will get out of Iranian regime change is more migrants flooding into our countries from the Middle East,” wrote pundit Scott Greer.

Others see military action as a chance to secure Israel's security

It’s not entirely opposition among prominent Republicans and conservative figures, however. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the GOP’s most aggressive war hawks, has openly called for regime change, saying “we’ve got a chance to end a threat to the state of Israel forever by replacing this regime with something better” during an interview on Fox News.

A recent YouGov poll found that the public decidedly opposed American military involvement, with a mere 16% of U.S. adults supporting such a move, 60% opposing it, and 24% unsure. 

Among Republicans, 23% supported military involvement, 53% opposed it, and 24% were unsure. The survey was conducted June 13-16 among 1,512 U.S. adults.

Negotiations, moreover, appear to be the public’s preferred strategy, with 56% of U.S. adults saying the U.S. should negotiate, 18% opposing that option, and 25% unsure.