How Three Loud MAGA Voices Derailed Trump’s Iran Strike
Three MAGA heavyweights, Witkoff, Carlson, and Vance, blocked a U.S. strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, derailing Trump’s war path and exposing a deep fracture in the movement that once marched in lockstep. Their motives clashed, their influence collided and America’s Iran strategy veered off course.
Twitter
As President Donald Trump weighed a potential U.S. military strike on Iran’s fortified Fordow nuclear facility in June 2025, three influential figures in his orbit, Steve Witkoff, Tucker Carlson, and Vice President J.D. Vance, emerged as significant obstacles, each driven by distinct motivations. Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, chased the glory of a diplomatic deal; Carlson, a prominent conservative commentator, warned of catastrophic consequences; and Vance, a staunch isolationist, pushed for restraint. Their combined influence disrupted Trump’s path toward direct military engagement, exposing deep fractures within the MAGA coalition and reshaping U.S. policy on Iran at a critical juncture.
Steve Witkoff: Chasing a Diplomatic Triumph
Steve Witkoff, a New York real estate magnate and Trump’s long-time friend, was appointed as the administration’s Middle East envoy with no formal diplomatic experience. Tasked with negotiating a solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Witkoff saw a historic deal as a chance to cement his legacy. In March 2025, he told Fox News that Iran could be persuaded to cap its nuclear enrichment, a position he reiterated in talks with Iran’s foreign minister in Oman, proposing that Tehran procure enriched nuclear fuel externally rather than producing it domestically. His optimism persisted even after Iran rejected a U.S. proposal on June 4, with Witkoff reportedly believing a deal was still possible, a stance that frustrated hawks like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who pushed for immediate action.
Witkoff’s pursuit of a diplomatic “win” clashed with Trump’s growing conviction that Fordow’s destruction was essential to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Posts on X, such as one by @michaelstat, accused Witkoff of prioritizing “the glory of a deal” over strategic necessity, arguing his efforts delayed a U.S. strike. Another post by @lindaelaine3 claimed Witkoff, alongside Vance, believed Iran would “fold if given enough time,” a miscalculation that critics argued emboldened Tehran and hindered Israel’s campaign. Witkoff’s real estate background led him to treat nuclear talks like property negotiations, a flawed approach that underestimated Iran’s resolve and slowed Trump’s shift toward military support for Israel’s June 12 strikes.
Tucker Carlson: Sounding the Alarm on War
Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News host and influential MAGA figure, became a vocal critic of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, framing it as a betrayal of Trump’s “America First” promise to avoid “forever wars.” In a June 13 newsletter and X post, Carlson called Trump “complicit” in Israel’s strikes, accusing conservative hawks like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rupert Murdoch of being “warmongers” pushing for U.S. airstrikes. On Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, he warned that a full-scale war could “end Trump’s presidency” and mark “the end of the American empire,” citing the U.S. military’s unpreparedness and the risk of entanglement in a conflict with no clear exit. Carlson’s public feud with Trump escalated when the president dismissed him as “kooky” on Truth Social, insisting, “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!”
Carlson’s relentless criticism, amplified by his large online following, resonated with MAGA’s isolationist base, which feared another Middle East quagmire. His warnings gained traction among figures like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who echoed his stance, stating, “Foreign wars put America last, kill innocent people, and will lead to our destruction.” A YouGov/Economist poll showed 60% of Americans opposed U.S. military involvement, bolstering Carlson’s influence. Posts on X, like @michaelstat’s, credited Carlson’s outspokenness with stopping Trump from ordering a Fordow strike, arguing he forced the president to reconsider amid fears of alienating his base. Carlson’s dire predictions, while criticized as exaggerated, pressured Trump to maintain a public distance from direct intervention, even as he provided Israel with intelligence and defensive support.
J.D. Vance: The Isolationist Anchor
Vice President J.D. Vance, a leading voice of MAGA’s isolationist wing, played a pivotal role in restraining Trump’s hawkish impulses. Known for opposing U.S. military entanglements, Vance had previously resisted strikes on Yemen’s Houthis, arguing that such conflicts were Europe’s responsibility. In a June 2025 X post, he praised Trump’s reluctance to commit troops to the Israel-Iran conflict but left room for potential escalation, noting that Trump “may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.” This nuanced stance aimed to bridge the divide between MAGA’s isolationists and hawks, but Vance’s internal influence leaned heavily toward restraint.
Alongside allies like Donald Trump Jr. and DNI Tulsi Gabbard, Vance opposed aggressive military action, fearing it would spark a wider war. An X post by @ggreenwald noted Vance’s leadership in a White House camp, including Witkoff and Carlson, advocating for a new Iran deal over strikes. Another post by @MLiamMcCollum credited Vance, Gabbard, and others with blocking earlier strikes on Iran in April 2025 to avoid broader conflict. Vance’s isolationism, rooted in his belief that decades of U.S. interventions have weakened America, clashed with hawks like Senator Lindsey Graham, who urged Trump to “finish the job” against Iran. By reinforcing the anti-war sentiment within Trump’s coalition, Vance helped delay a U.S. strike, even as Trump provided limited support for Israel’s operation.
The Collective Impact and MAGA’s Fracture
The convergence of Witkoff’s diplomatic ambitions, Carlson’s public warnings, and Vance’s isolationist advocacy created a formidable counterforce to Trump’s consideration of a U.S. strike on Fordow. Witkoff’s pursuit of a deal, driven by a desire for a high-profile diplomatic success, prolonged negotiations that Israel and hawks viewed as futile, delaying decisive action. Carlson’s vocal opposition, amplified through media platforms, mobilized MAGA’s anti-war base, making direct U.S. involvement politically risky. Vance, wielding influence within the administration, reinforced this restraint, aligning with figures like Gabbard to prioritize diplomacy over escalation.
This trio’s efforts exposed a bitter split within the MAGA movement, pitting isolationists against hawks like Graham and Hannity. A Gray House survey found 79% of respondents supported U.S. offensive aid to Israel, but 89% were concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, highlighting the tension Trump faced. Trump’s public ambiguity, veering between supporting Israel’s strikes and distancing himself from them, reflected the pressure from these voices. Ultimately, while Trump provided Israel with intelligence, air-defense systems, and a Navy destroyer, the absence of a direct U.S. strike on Fordow suggests Witkoff, Carlson, and Vance succeeded in tempering his hawkish instincts, at least temporarily.
However, their influence came at a cost. Israel’s solo strikes, while effective, left Fordow operational, with French diplomats warning that even a successful attack would only delay Iran’s nuclear program. The internal discord, coupled with Iran’s retaliatory strikes, killing 24 and injuring 500 in Israel, has heightened fears of escalation. As Trump navigates this dilemma, the trio’s opposition has not only stalled a U.S. strike but also deepened the MAGA movement’s fractures, leaving the president’s foreign policy legacy on a precarious edge.