Bulwark Takes: MAGA Is In Open War With Itself Over Israel Attacking Iran!

Release Date: June 13, 2025
Host: The Bulwark Team (Tim Miller and Will Sommer)

Introduction to the Crisis within MAGA

In the latest episode of Bulwark Takes, hosts Tim Miller and Will Sommer delve into the internal conflicts brewing within the MAGA movement following Israel's recent military strikes against Iran. Released on June 13, 2025, this episode examines how differing viewpoints on U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts are causing rifts among MAGA supporters, potentially reshaping the coalition's future dynamics.

Pre-Strike Tensions and Predictions

Tim Miller opens the discussion by highlighting preemptive tensions within MAGA circles. Referencing Jack Posobiek’s pre-strike statement, Miller notes:

“This strike would divide MAGA, especially at a time we are totally united on immigration and have the momentum. Let Will Cook.”
(01:00)

Posobiek had anticipated that the military action would create divisions within the movement, particularly as it coincided with strong unified sentiments on immigration. This prediction sets the stage for exploring how the actual strikes may have impacted internal alliances.

Diverse Reactions Among MAGA Influencers

Will Sommer responds by acknowledging the emerging fault lines:

“We'll have to see long term if it divides MAGA. But I do think this is a real fault line.”
(02:02)

The conversation shifts to key MAGA figures and their stances. Nick Fuentes, identified as a white nationalist leader with significant influence among younger, racially charged MAGA supporters, has vocally opposed the strikes. Sommer describes Fuentes' reaction:

“He’s been livestreaming, getting a ton of audience and just saying, you know, Trump has betrayed us. He posted a meme of like a guy with a MAGA hat getting his head crushed by a boot.”
(02:10)

Fuentes’ vehement opposition underscores a faction within MAGA that feels betrayed by President Trump’s actions, highlighting a potential schism.

The Isolationist Wing: Tucker Carlson’s Stand

Tim Miller brings Tucker Carlson into the discussion, pointing out his strong isolationist stance:

“He [Tucker] wrote, ‘The United States should not at any level participate in a war with Iran. No funding, no American weapons, no troops on the ground.’”
(03:30)

Carlson’s position represents a significant portion of MAGA that advocates for minimal U.S. involvement abroad. His assertions that opposing support for Israel isn’t anti-Semitic but rather a legitimate critique of current policies signal deep ideological divides.

JD Vance and the Expanding Isolationist Influence

The conversation further explores JD Vance’s alignment within MAGA. Sommer notes Vance's isolationist rhetoric:

“Privately, he’s been giving all these speeches that are saying, you know, the US Needs to pull back from world conflicts.”
(07:30)

Vance’s public and private statements suggest a strategic shift towards isolationism within influential MAGA circles, potentially alienating members who support active U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts.

Potential for a Major Fissure within MAGA

Tim Miller assesses the long-term implications:

“If you end up in a situation where there needs to be more funding, more weapons, more money, you know, and the ground has really been primed for getting MAGA voters to be opposed to any of that. And I think there's some danger there that's short of even troops on the ground.”
(08:13)

This highlights the possibility that escalating involvement could exacerbate existing tensions, leading to significant internal conflict within the MAGA movement.

Historical Parallels and Future Outlook

Will Sommer draws parallels to historical isolationist sentiments:

“This is very much like the isolationist group in the party and I think represented by Tucker most prominently.”
(05:43)

By comparing current isolationist tendencies to past movements, Sommer suggests that these ideological divides are not unprecedented but could have significant ramifications for MAGA’s cohesion and political influence moving forward.

Conclusion: The Future of MAGA Amidst Internal Strife

The episode concludes with reflections on how these internal conflicts might shape the future of the MAGA movement. As Trump navigates his coalition, balancing hawkish supporters with isolationist factions becomes increasingly precarious. The hosts predict that unless the situation escalates further, MAGA might maintain its unity, but persistent tensions could lead to lasting divisions.

“There will be some desire to do it... You could easily see that there would be a lot of people saying, like, hey, do we need to do this effort?”
(09:23)

Tim Miller and Will Sommer emphasize the importance of monitoring these developments, suggesting that the outcome will significantly impact the political landscape and the strength of MAGA as a cohesive force.

Notable Quotes:

• Tim Miller: “Strike would divide MAGA, especially at a time we are totally united on immigration and have the momentum. Let Will Cook.” (01:00)

• Will Sommer: “We'll have to see long term if it divides MAGA. But I do think this is a real fault line.” (02:02)

• Will Sommer: “He’s been livestreaming, getting a ton of audience and just saying, you know, Trump has betrayed us.” (02:10)

• Tim Miller: “He [Tucker] wrote, ‘The United States should not at any level participate in a war with Iran. No funding, no American weapons, no troops on the ground.’” (03:30)

• Will Sommer: “This is very much like the isolationist group in the party and I think represented by Tucker most prominently.” (05:43)

• Tim Miller: “If you end up in a situation where there needs to be more funding, more weapons, more money, you know, and the ground has really been primed for getting MAGA voters to be opposed to any of that.” (08:13)

This episode of Bulwark Takes provides a comprehensive analysis of the emerging challenges within the MAGA movement, offering listeners insightful perspectives on how differing opinions regarding U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, could influence the movement's future trajectory.