Israel's Strike on Iran Puts Trump's 'No More Wars' Pledge to the Test

Former President Donald Trump has long promised to keep the United States out of “forever wars,” but Israel’s large-scale military strikes on Iran have brought that vow into sharp focus. The escalating conflict is now forcing Trump to walk a fine line between supporting a close ally and maintaining his non-interventionist image — a key appeal for his core political base.

As Israel launched powerful airstrikes on Iranian military targets, Trump publicly warned that such an attack could lead to “massive conflict.” Yet, just hours later, he praised Israel’s actions, calling them “excellent,” and boasted about the advanced American-made weapons the Israeli military used. Trump also warned Iran that more strikes would come if it didn’t agree to a deal, signaling his readiness to back Israel’s aggressive posture — even as he insists the U.S. won't get directly involved.

Behind the scenes, the U.S. did play a role. American forces reportedly helped Israel intercept Iranian missiles fired in retaliation. Officially, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that the U.S. was not part of the strike and warned Iran not to retaliate against U.S. troops stationed across the Middle East. But experts believe the message is clear: the U.S. is supporting Israel while publicly trying to appear neutral, hoping Iran will not escalate further.

Trump’s team had been trying to negotiate with Iran. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, was due for a sixth meeting with Iranian officials the same weekend the strikes took place. This diplomacy-first approach has been part of Trump’s broader strategy of reducing direct military involvement abroad. However, the Israeli strikes may now derail that path and force Trump to choose how far he is willing to go in backing Israel militarily.

This development has sparked division even within Trump’s inner circle and political base. Many top Republican lawmakers have rallied behind Israel, supporting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is viewed as a strong ally and a hero to much of the American right. However, Trump's populist and non-interventionist supporters are more cautious.

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, who previously advised Trump against attacking Iran, warned of internal divisions in Trump’s camp — between “warmongers and peacemakers.” Echoing this sentiment, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a video warning that world leaders risk nuclear catastrophe if they pursue warlike policies.

Trump himself, in a recent speech in Saudi Arabia, criticized America’s long history of military entanglements in the Middle East, stating, “I don’t like war. My greatest hope is to be a peacemaker.”

Now, however, the question is how much support he’s willing to offer Israel if the situation worsens. Some experts, like former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, say Trump will have to decide whether to authorize U.S. capabilities to destroy Iranian underground nuclear sites — a move that would almost certainly drag America deeper into the conflict. That decision, Shapiro notes, would likely divide Trump’s advisors and his voter base.

The political opposition has also been vocal. Many Democrats strongly oppose Netanyahu, especially over Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Congressman Joaquin Castro called the Israeli attack “pure sabotage” and questioned how Trump’s “America First” policy fits with being pulled into another war.

Geopolitical analysts warn that this crisis could open doors for adversaries like China to act more aggressively, such as making moves on Taiwan while the U.S. is distracted. They also note that even if U.S. troops don't enter combat, America may still be drawn into prolonged support — through weapons, intelligence, and diplomacy — as the war expands.

In a world already shaken by the war in Ukraine and rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific, the fear is that yet another conflict could spiral beyond anyone’s control. For Trump, the promise to avoid endless wars is now colliding with the harsh reality of global power politics — and the decisions he makes next could define his legacy.