During the 2024 US presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump presented  himself as the anti-war option, vowing to end America’s “endless wars” and criticizing  past administrations for foolishly entangling the US in prolonged and costly foreign  conflicts. However, by supporting Israel’s recent assault on Iran and subsequently  ordering the US military to launch attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, President Trump once again demonstrated the fraudulence of his alleged anti-war stance. Indeed,  Trump’s first term was littered with examples that debunked Trump’s claims of being  anti-war or isolationist. 

Former US President Barack Obama war rightly criticized for his drone warfare  campaign, which caused vast amounts of civilian casualties. However, there was a  significant (and often overlooked) increase in US drone strikes during Trump’s first  tenure in the White House. During Trump’s first term there were 2,243 US drone strikes  in the first two years alone, compared with 1,878 during the eight years of the Obama  presidency. The Trump administration also revoked a rule requiring reporting on drone  strike deaths, rendering the operations less transparent and reducing CIA  accountability. 

Furthermore, according to a study by the Watson Institute at Brown University, civilian  deaths in US and allied forces’ airstrikes in Afghanistan “dramatically increased” in  2017-2019, after Trump’s Pentagon “relaxed its rules of engagement for airstrikes and  escalated the air war in Afghanistan”. US air strikes also increased sixfold in Yemen in  2017 as compared with the previous year. Civilian deaths also rose sharply from US-led  strikes on ISIS in Syria and Iraq during the first Trump administration. According to  Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, these developments  may have been partially attributable to a “change in tone and command climate” at a  time when then-US Secretary of Defense James Mattis was openly talking about “an  annihilation campaign”. Mattis’ rhetoric was also completely consistent with Trump’s  2016 campaign promises, when he pledged to go after terrorists and their family  members. In 2019, Trump also vetoed a bipartisan resolution that sought to end US  involvement in Saudi-Arabia’s atrocities in Yemen. As David Miliband, the president of  the International Rescue Committee, noted, “[Trump’s veto] sets back the hope for  respite for the Yemeni people, and leaves the US upholding a failed strategy”.  

Trump also had the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani assassinated in early 2020, which  greatly escalated tensions with Iran and could have led to the outbreak of a major US-

Iran war, with horrifying implications for the whole Middle East region. Trump’s attacks  on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year could similarly have led to a massive  conflagration. The fact that did not happen does not make Trump a dove; on the  contrary, carrying out insane and illegal attacks and then hoping that matters don’t  escalate out of control is completely incompatible with genuine anti-war  commitments. It could also be noted that it was Iran’s restraint in both instances which  prevented the outbreak of a full-scale war. After Trump attacked Iranian nuclear  facilities, Iran retaliated by attacking only one US military base in Qatar. Iran had also warned Washington of this symbolic attack ahead of time, thus ensuring there would be  no American casualties and further escalation. In his first term, Trump also ripped up  the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which sought to limit Iran’s nuclear  program. This move also escalated tensions with Iran, which, according to the  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was in full compliance under the agreement  until May 2019 – a year after the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal. The deal had to  be terminated, because for Trump, eviscerating the legacy of the Obama administration  (under which the deal was reached) was more important than maintaining peace. 

It is sometimes argued that Trump is an “anti-war” president because he has not  started any new wars, but it is sheer luck that his actions haven’t caused one.  Furthermore, the bar is set quite low if one can be considered “anti-war” just because  one hasn’t launched George W. Bush-style full-scale ground invasions of another  country. It also wasn’t Trump, but his predecessor Joe Biden, who ended America’s  longest “forever war” by withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan. Trump has also  threatened to invade Panama and Mexico, a prospect which may be unlikely, but such threats are hardly in line with Trump’s projected self-image as a peacemaker. Earlier  this year, Trump also authorized Israel to renew its military offensive in Gaza, destroying  the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. 

Trump’s closest allies have displayed similar flexibility in their professed anti-war  ideals. Tucker Carlson, a prominent right-wing media figure, has long portrayed himself  as being anti-war, expressing opposition to US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. However, after Trump publicly lambasted Carlson for his stance, Carlson reportedly  called Trump and apologized. Later, in an NBC News interview, Carlson stated that “the  bombing of the nuclear sites in Iran, which I did not support, I hope it works out great,  and I’ll be grateful if it does”. In other words, aggression and illegal military attacks are  completely acceptable if they are successful from the aggressor’s point of view. The  idea that this position can be considered anti-war (or even isolationist) is astounding. Carlson’s impressive anti-war credentials date back to the days when he  enthusiastically supported the Iraq war and only turned against it after it had become  deeply unpopular in the US. His opposition to the war was also based on explicitly  racist sentiments, remarking once that Iraq was not worth invading because it is “a  crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate primitive monkeys”. If a 

country were “worth” invading, presumably Carlson would have no problem with resort  to military force and extreme violations of international law. 

Another right-wing talking head who has portrayed himself as an anti-war/isolationist figure, Charlie Kirk, also eventually bowed down to Trump, urging everyone to “trust our  Commander in Chief”, praising Trump for his “surgical strike” on Iran. Kirk also  defended the attacks by claiming that “Iran decided to forego diplomacy in pursuit of a  bomb” – a transparent falsehood, given that it was the US and Israel that derailed  negotiations with their attacks on Iran and that Trump’s own Director of National  Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in US Congress earlier this year that the US  intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear  weapon”. Furthermore, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi recently stated that  “whereas until the early 2000’s there used to be…a structured and systematic effort [by  Iran] in the direction of a nuclear device, that is not the case now”. 

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist and a supposed anti-interventionist  voice, also indicated that Trump’s base would continue to support him if the US  became involved in Israel’s conflict with Iran, stating that “we will fight it up to the end  and make sure you get full information but if he has more intelligence and makes that  case to the American people, the MAGA movement will support President Trump”. Overall, most of Trump’s prominent supporters voiced support for his actions on Iran,  even though there were some mild expressions of discontent. Even US  Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who criticized Trump for involving the US in  the Israel-Iran conflict, eventually declined to support the War Powers Resolution  designed to prevent further US attacks on Iran and reaffirm the authority of US  Congress to declare war. The only Republicans in US Congress who demonstrated any  real anti-war/anti-interventionist commitments were Representative Thomas Massie (the only Republican sponsor of the resolution in the US House of Representatives) and  Senator Rand Paul (the only Republican who voted yes on the War Powers Resolution in  the US Senate).  

What all of this demonstrates, once again, is that the only principle among Trump’s  supporters that is of any real relevance is deference to Trump. There has been much  debate and discussion on whether American leftists should align themselves with anti war voices in the American right-wing circles. In principle, there is nothing wrong with  forging transideological alliances on important issues if there is considerable  convergence between different ideological and political camps. Preventing wars and  opposing aggression are certainly issues where one should welcome all the allies one  can have. Unfortunately, however, many prominent American right-wingers’ professed  anti-war or isolationist views are, to put it mildly, of questionable sincerity, especially  those expressed by Trump. 

---