US President Donald Trump has come under fire for adopting a contradictory stance on Israel’s massive airstrikes against Iran, simultaneously claiming credit for the operation while denying any American involvement, in what many see as an egregious display of double standards.
Trump’s attempt to present himself as both a peacemaker and a strategic mastermind has backfired, as prominent figures within his own conservative base are expressing anger and betrayal, calling for the US to end its unconditional support for Israel.
The former president initially opposed the strikes publicly, warning that military action could derail delicate diplomatic overtures towards Tehran, yet pivoted barely a day later to suggest the assault came at the end of a 60-day ultimatum he had given Iran to negotiate on its nuclear programme.
Trump asserted that he was fully in the loop and suggested the strikes were a continuation of his pressure campaign, but such remarks have deepened the rift between pro-Israel hawks and “America First” conservatives.
Several influential figures in the Republican camp have responded with dismay, warning that the US risks being dragged into a war that serves foreign interests over national priorities. Many have argued that support for Israel’s aggressive posture contradicts the central premise of Trump’s 2024 re-election platform, which promised a retreat from endless wars and a renewed focus on domestic priorities.
The sentiment that Trump has capitulated to neoconservative pressures has intensified as the White House scrambles to control the narrative around the Israeli strikes.
While the Israeli government has claimed coordination with Washington and suggested Trump had provided a green light, the administration’s messaging has been marked by confusion and contradiction. Statements from Republican Senator Marco Rubio framed the attack as a unilateral Israeli move, while reports later confirmed that the US had recently replenished Israel’s Iron Dome missile supplies.
Though Trump has denied playing an active role, officials from Israel and American intelligence agencies suggest otherwise, indicating the US likely had early awareness of Israel’s preparations.
This ambiguity has fuelled speculation that Israel may have acted ahead of Trump’s approval, effectively forcing his hand by presenting the US with a fait accompli. Analysts have pointed out that the scale of Israel’s operation—featuring over 200 fighter jets striking more than 100 targets inside Iran—would have been impossible to conceal from American intelligence. Still, Trump’s abrupt shift from cautioning restraint to calling the attack “excellent” has raised doubts about his motives and whether his public opposition was genuine or merely performative.
Adding to the backlash, conservative commentators aligned with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement have condemned the strikes as reckless and warned of the dangers of entrapment in another Middle East conflict. They have argued that a war with Iran would fuel terrorism and cost American lives for objectives unrelated to national interest.
Many now insist the US must drop Israel as a strategic partner if it continues to pursue a confrontational agenda that could destabilise the region and undermine American sovereignty.
Calls for peace have grown louder among the MAGA base, as several right-wing lawmakers, commentators, and activists stress that any escalation would damage Trump’s presidency and derail broader domestic goals. These figures have reiterated that the American people overwhelmingly voted for a foreign policy of restraint, not intervention, and view involvement in Israel’s wars as a betrayal of that mandate.
The perception that Trump is trying to have it both ways—taking credit for strategic foresight while denying responsibility for consequences—has alienated even staunch supporters.