Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz in an interview last week. Source: YouTube.

The Republican Party, divided over a new war

In the days leading up to the U.S. bombing of nuclear facilities in Tehran, ultraconservative host and ally of Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, interviewed Republican Senator Ted Cruz in a tense exchange that exposed the internal divisions within the Republican Party.

On one hand, Carlson vehemently argued that involving the U.S. in a new conflict would be unnecessary and dangerous, warning that it could escalate quickly on a global scale. Moreover, he emphasized that, in his view, the internal situation on the streets of the country is already calamitous enough to open another front abroad.

On the other hand, Cruz attempted to justify the need for intervention by citing historical examples of regimes overthrown by the United States, from Saddam Hussein to Muammar Gaddafi. He also evoked the firmness that he claimed Ronald Reagan demonstrated against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, he was interrupted by Carlson, who confronted him with a series of pointed questions: “Why hasn’t the U.S. improved, despite winning the Cold War? Why don’t we have better infrastructure? Why are there more and more people homeless? If we won, why does our country look like this?” (...) “We’re very focused on stopping our enemies abroad, but what’s the point if our country is what it is today?”

Cruz tried to present the regime change in Iran as an effort primarily aimed at highlighting human rights violations in dictatorial and oppressive regimes. However, Carlson quickly interrupted him to point out that the United States funds and supports armed opposition groups with the explicit goal of overthrowing the Iranian government, a significant difference from the narrative the senator was attempting to install.

Israel: an alliance at the center of the debate

When addressing the conflict in the Middle East, the debate intensified. Carlson asked how much the U.S. support for Israel cost, and Cruz responded that $3 billion was allocated annually. “We gain great benefits from our alliance with Israel,” the senator claimed.

Carlson countered with another question: he wanted to know if the Mossad cooperated with U.S. intelligence by sharing information. Cruz replied that, like other allies such as Canada or the United Kingdom, Israel does not share all information and likely also conducts intelligence operations within U.S. territory. This prompted a new attack from the host: “The difference is that we don't fund military operations for Canada or the UK. That’s why I think it makes sense to ask questions.”

The temperature of the conversation rose even further when accusations of antisemitism against Carlson began. The host responded forcefully, labeling Cruz as base for insinuating that questioning the relationship between Israel and the U.S. equated to attacking the Jewish community. Carlson defended his position by arguing that the U.S. government is, above all, his own government, and that as a citizen he has every right to ask uncomfortable questions about its foreign policy.

Trump, who had been experiencing weeks of tension with another of his support bases, led by Elon Musk, with whom he had public spats that ended in accusations regarding his possible inclusion on Epstein's list, quickly intervened in the debate. Through his social network Truth Social, the former president directly criticized Tucker Carlson, writing that “someone should bring him some common sense” and dismissing his warnings by stating that Iran cannot have access to a nuclear bomb.

Fractures in the MAGA coalition: Trump's leadership at its most fragile moment

Tensions within the MAGA coalition led by Donald Trump traverse one of its most critical moments since its formation. The recent protests in the streets of Los Angeles, which quickly spread to other cities in the country, exposed a growing social unrest. This has been compounded by the distancing of key figures such as Elon Musk, who until recently was considered a strategic ally within the space, and now the confrontation with the isolationist wing represented by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, two influential voices among the more radical bases.

This scenario reveals that Trump’s leadership faces a situation of maximum fragility. Internal divisions, coupled with the deterioration of ideological cohesion within the movement, raise doubts about the former president’s ability to make rational decisions in a context marked by tension and international pressure.

Historically, Trump, as a businessman, has shown a tendency to avoid irreversible decisions in foreign policy. His most drastic moves, such as imposing tariffs on countries like China, were usually followed by rounds of negotiations aimed at positioning the U.S. from a transactional rather than strategic logic.

In this context, the current situation of internal fragmentation not only conditions his decisions but also weakens the international projection of his eventual return to power, revealing a coalition that no longer operates as a compact block, but as an increasingly tense space driven by opposing agendas. A scenario that could have very negative effects on a government seeking to head into elections in 2026.