OPINION - America at 250: Still debating military intervention abroad

Robert Stephen Ford is a former US Ambassador to Algeria and Syria.

Since the founding of their country, Americans have had sharp debates and arguments. Domestic issues like slavery divided the new country, and there was disagreement about foreign policy and the question of how much the US should be involved in foreign wars.

Two hundred fifty years later, Americans agree on the need to maintain alliances and a major role in world affairs, but do not agree on all alliances or on wars of choice.

Domestic fallout from the Iran war

US President Donald Trump gambled that this Iran operation would be as fast as the intervention in Venezuela in January. He lost that gamble. Four months after the Iran war started, a June 2026 Ipsos opinion survey showed 57% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of Iran, including 29% of Republicans. Although most Republicans still support the war, Trump’s inability to show how the war will secure American national interests has reinforced the rejection of wars of choice inside the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.

Opinion influencers such as Tucker Carlson, FOX Television personality Megyn Kelly, and media star Candace Owens blasted the administration for abandoning its pledge to avoid military interventions abroad. Interestingly, this faction agrees with left-wing Democrats that resources devoted to such foreign wars should be directed instead to domestic priorities like the economy. They represent, in a sense, a return to American policy up to the end of the 18th century, when the US followed a more restrained foreign policy and focused instead on internal development. US Vice President JD Vance, hoping to mobilize the MAGA movement for his presidential campaign in 2028, received Trump’s blessing to lead the negotiations that led to the June 17 memorandum of understanding with Iran and the promise of a ceasefire.

Vance-Rubio rift

Amid their efforts to extricate the US from the Iran war and stabilize their political support, Trump and Vance responded sharply when the Israeli government rejected the memorandum of understanding. On June 16, Trump criticized Israeli military operations in Lebanon that delayed the conclusion of the memorandum of understanding. Vance warned that the Israeli government should not anger the Trump administration, which is, he said, Israel’s last friend in the world. He warned Israel not to disrupt the tentative ceasefire with Iran by escalating against Hizballah in Lebanon. Vance also chastised Israel for always seeking military solutions to conflicts. He envisioned a potential future of American-Iranian cooperation instead of unending confrontation.

Remarks from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio show that Republicans are not united on the Iran deal or Israel, despite Rubio’s public defense of the Iran deal. In contrast to Vance, who spoke of reformers in Tehran, Rubio called the Iranian government "extremists" and "lunatics." Rubio avoided sharp criticism of Israeli tactics in Lebanon. Unlike Trump and Vance, Rubio stressed that a separate negotiation excluding Iran would stop the fighting in Lebanon. He then led the American team hosting bilateral negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in Washington, which produced a trilateral agreement on June 26. If implemented, this deal would lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah and the normalization of relations between Israel and Lebanon. This deal, backed by Israel, fits with Rubio’s longstanding support for Israel. It could boost his profile among friends of Israel as the 2028 election approaches. At the same time, Rubio has been careful to minimize differences with Trump and Vance; he understands that crossing Trump would damage his prospects against Vance in 2028.

If the Iran war turns into more serious, sustained fighting, and higher price inflation and interest rates then batter the American economy, the Republicans face sharp reverses in the 2026 congressional elections. Moreover, the MAGA elements inside the Republican Party that demand foreign policy restraint will have no obvious candidate in 2028. Vance and Rubio supported the Iran war, and only a couple of Republican politicians publicly rebuked Trump for starting it.

The Democratic divide

The Democrats are united against the Iran war, but they are divided on what to do in the Middle East. Opinion surveys indicate that support for Israel among Democratic voters is falling, especially among young people. Democrats especially critical of Israel want to stop not only aid but also arms sales to the Jewish state, and they bitterly criticize pro-Israel lobbies. Democratic candidates with such views have won several primary elections this year. By contrast, centrist Democrats argue that disagreements about Iran or Gaza should not cause severe damage to relations with Israel or block arms sales. Centrists hope to keep votes and campaign funding from friends of Israel. This debate about Israel will figure among the considerations in choosing a new candidate from the state of Maine in two weeks. The 2026 Senate election in Maine could decide which party controls the Senate, and thus whether the Democratic Party will be able to restrain Trump in his last two years in the White House.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.