Elijah Kahlenberg is an editorial intern with Democracy in Exile and a legal research intern with DAWN. He has been at the forefront of youth-based anti-war and peace activism surrounding Israel-Palestine in his role as the founder and president of Atidna International. Elijah has previously written opinion pieces in the Forward, LA Progressive, Newsday, Haaretz, International Digest, and other outlets.
As the Israel-Iran war escalates to unprecedented levels, a sobering question looms over Washington's political landscape: Does anyone around U.S. President Donald Trump have the courage—or the political will—to directly oppose his military intervention in the Middle East?
After analyzing the actions and statements of various Trump-aligned Republicans—including his Cabinet members, key media influencers, Congressional leaders and U.S. State Department figures—the picture is disturbingly clear: the GOP's dominant voices are marching toward deeper military engagement, including direct U.S. strikes on Iran.
Dissent against the president, as opposed to policy, is almost nonexistent. Even the staunchest restraint-oriented officials and experts refuse to directly condemn Trump as opposed to general war in the Middle East out of fear of retribution.
In Congress, Representative Thomas Massie and Senator Rand Paul are among a few lone, consistent voices against interventionism. Massie—who co-signed bipartisan legislation to block "unauthorized hostilities" with Iran—has openly condemned U.S. military involvement, while Paul has reiterated his long-standing opposition to foreign entanglements.
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who brands herself as an anti-interventionist, joined the cause by tweeting support for isolationist, anti-war Republicans. Other Make America Great Again (MAGA) heavyweights like former Congressman Matt Gaetz and former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon have done their utmost to oppose a war with Iran. Both have appeared on various media outlets, declaring their refusal to be ensnared in another foreign war.
Tucker Carlson has likewise used his media platform to deliver a forceful argument against U.S. intervention. But beyond his loyal listeners, few in positions of power seem to be accepting his message—with Trump chastising the podcaster for criticizing the administration's war policies.
Within Trump's Cabinet, the most muted caution comes not from any longstanding insider but from Tulsi Gabbard, who prides herself on opposing neoliberal, western meddling in the Middle East. She posted a recent video vaguely warning against nuclear proliferation and the danger of war—without naming Israel or Iran. It is hardly a clarion call for de-escalation, let alone criticism of the president.
In early May, Trump's Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were involved in internal disputes over Iran policy. At the time, they reportedly pushed back against hawkish voices like then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
But the message has shifted as Trump has increasingly backed Israel's war of choice.
Hegseth has grown more bellicose, especially in his recent testimony to Congress, where he refused to commit to a policy of restraint and declined to say whether the United States should wait to be attacked before striking Iran. Wiles and Vance, for their part, have also echoed Trump's increasingly hawkish posture. Likewise, Gabbard has fully aligned herself with the administration's new hawkish agenda on Iran after facing heavy criticism from Trump for her early 2025 comments assessing Iran was not seeking out nuclear weapons—contradicting Israel's claimed justification for war with the Islamic Republic.
Nearly all the other prominent figures in the Trump administration or leading the Republican Party have made their stance clear: they back the president. Some have called for direct American involvement alongside Israel. Others advocate for regime change in Tehran. And some, like Trump's Senior Director for Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka, have amplified calls for a coup in Iran, including a proposal to deploy Elon Musk's Starlink to assist dissidents—which Musk later agreed to do.
This suggests that Trump's circle, outside most of the America First wing of the GOP, is getting in line with the president's sudden preferred Iran policy, which appears to be war. More than any other factor, the president demands loyalty—a dynamic that forces sycophants to get in line.
Even the staunchest restraint-oriented officials and experts refuse to directly condemn Trump as opposed to general war in the Middle East out of fear of retribution.
- Elijah Demetrios Kahlenberg
To be sure, Trump's adoption of a hawkish Iran strategy is causing a fissure in the Republican Party. Yet while the interventionist and restrainer blocs face off, neither is openly criticizing Trump directly. Rather, they are criticizing each other's policies in what has become a common dog-eat-dog environment welcomed by the president.
Trump, meanwhile, appears to be relishing the spotlight—as always.
Nowhere is that fact clearer than in the lead up to Israel's attack. The transformation among senior administration officials and Trump's sudden adoption of pro-war stances bolsters evidence that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu coordinated Israel's recent attacks on Iran, even as Trump and Netanyahu's associates publicly planted media stories of feigned tensions and disunity. In recent weeks, multiple sources pushed the idea that Netanyahu was going behind Trump to undermine talks with Tehran or that outright animosity was brewing between the two demagogues over diverging approaches to Iran.
Now, it appears that these mixed messages were deliberate. Trump boasted to both Reuters and the New York Post that "everything" was known and coordinated with Israel. That comment shatters any illusion of a passive endorsement, placing earlier statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who attempted to distance U.S. involvement—into question. Whatever Rubio may have tried to suggest, Trump's statements confirm that coordination over Israel's strikes was real, active and intentional.
This is not just a war footing. It is a war plan built on the same foundational lies—weapons of mass destruction—as the Iraq War.
Consider the legacy of that intervention, including trillions of dollars spent, thousands of American lives lost, and states left fractured. Time and again, from Baghdad to Kabul, the politically driven pursuit of regime change has yielded instability, empowered extremists and tarnished America's moral standing. To believe Iran will be different is to ignore decades of painful lessons.
And yet the pressure campaign intensifies. Netanyahu is appealing directly to the American public and media, framing Iran as not just a regional threat but a personal one. He is claiming, without evidence, that Tehran attempted to assassinate Donald Trump. This kind of rhetoric aims to incite the United States into Israel's war of choice on Netanyahu's terms.
Pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC and its network of political influence further ensure that incitement echoes throughout Washington. Since Oct. 7, 2023, its lobbying machine has directed over $20 billion in aid to Israel while securing loyalty from members of Congress now facing mounting pressure to support escalation. This is no longer about mutual defense—it is about leveraging American blood and treasure to settle another nation's scores.
If this trajectory continues unchecked, the United States will again find itself entangled in a costly, destabilizing and avoidable conflict. The moment calls for courage—not just from lone dissenters like Rand Paul or Tucker Carlson—but from those within Trump's orbit with access to power and anything resembling a conscience. Without their intervention, the path ahead is tragically predictable.
