For decades the idea that his regime represented the worst of the world was a mainstay of Republican foreign policy.
But in recent months, and especially as the administration defends its tentative peace deal, a different perspective is gaining ground in parts of the American right: Iran as a pragmatic country that the United States can, and must, learn to live with.
The protagonists of the new strategy
The sharp turn is spearheaded by President Trump, who called Iran’s leaders “strong people, smart people” last week, but the trend goes far beyond him. Vice President Jay D. Vance has emerged as her main supporter. Conservatives who have always had isolationist tendencies have been activated. Even some old “hawks” have changed their tune.
It is too early to tell if this change will last. Many Republicans have maintained their hardline stance, and Trump periodically threatens to restart the war. Part of the shifting rhetoric among Republicans could be the familiar Trump-era effort to stay in line with a fickle president.
A generational shift
The Republicans’ sudden shift in attitude toward Iran is not just a whim or a personal desire by Donald Trump to stop hostilities. On the contrary, it hides behind it much deeper causes, which are divided into two levels:
1. The internal political dynamics
Younger Republicans (voters and politicians) think differently than older Republicans. They grew up seeing the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and no longer want America to be involved in “perpetual wars” abroad.
Traditionally, the Republican Party has provided “uncompromising” and total support for Israel. Younger conservatives are beginning to distance themselves from this policy, as they believe that America should not sacrifice its own soldiers and resources to protect other countries.
Iran was bombed heavily for weeks but did not collapse or surrender. This military prowess has forced the US right wing to acknowledge (albeit half-heartedly) that Iran is a tough, calculating adversary that cannot be easily defeated, so the only realistic solution is diplomacy.
2. The global extensions
This internal American change of mind directly affects the geopolitical chessboard, as the war with Iran has shown how vulnerable the rest of the world is:
Iran controls hubs (such as the Straits of Hormuz) through which oil and natural gas pass. The war there threatened the energy that Europe and Asia needed to function.
Gulf Arab countries (such as Saudi Arabia or the UAE), which have traditionally relied on the US to protect them from Iran, are now seeing America back down. This upsets all security balances in the Middle East.
Pragmatism on the battlefield
Stephen K. Bannon, a former senior adviser to Trump, described the president as a “dealer and pragmatist” who now knows “he’s not going to have a surrender ceremony on the battleship Missouri in the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.”
Bannon, the New York Times report said, recalled the wars of ancient Persia against Greece and Rome to explain Trump’s struggle to defeat Iran. “They go into their shell and harden up,” Mr. Bannon said in a text message.
Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said the war in Iran had “successfully dismantled” much of the country’s military and that negotiators were now working “to permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
“The president is not making these major national security decisions to appease podcasters or think tank theorists,” he said. “His only priority is what’s best for the American people.”
The influence of new conservative media
But in a sign that the White House is attuned to the shifting political balance surrounding Iran, Vance appeared on Megyn Kelly’s web show last week to promote the tentative peace deal.
Kelly, a former Fox News anchor, has four million subscribers on YouTube and has become a voice for Republicans frustrated with Trump’s foreign policy.
The hawks are “operating under an outdated view of the world and of American posture and capability,” Kelly said on her show two days after her conversation with Vance, adding: “The Iranians are not going to bend. They did well in this war.’
The break with the past of the “axis of evil”
This earlier view of the world was perhaps captured in President George W. Bush’s State of the Nation address in 2002. Iran was part of an “axis of evil”; for the United States, it was “both our responsibility and our privilege to fight for freedom.” As he launched the war on February 28, Trump himself had called the Iranian government “very cruel, terrible people” who “wanted to do evil.”
Echoing that sentiment, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on his podcast last week that Trump is now taking “very bad advice” on Iran because “giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics” is “a very, very bad idea.” Sen. Tim Sheehy, Republican of Montana, said on “Fox & Friends” that Iran’s leaders still “want you and me dead.”
Iran is an emerging global power
In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Trita Parsi (co-founder of the Quincy Institute think tank) argued that the war has strengthened Iran, making it a major power due to control of the Straits of Hormuz, vindicating his initial warning to the Trump administration that the war was a mistake.
Parsi, who is in constant consultation with American negotiators, noted that the perception of Iran has changed radically: a section of the American right now does not care about the country and is more angry that the US started the war than the strategic defeat it suffered.
Polls and new voters
A New York Times/Siena poll last month found that 53 percent of likely Republicans under 45 opposed the Iran war, compared with 22 percent of those 45 and older.
54% of the younger group said Trump is too supportive of Israel, compared to just 16% of the older group. And nearly three-quarters of Republican supporters under 45 said the United States should pay less attention to foreign problems, compared with 40% of those 45 and older.
The different worldviews were also evident in younger Republican supporters’ relatively positive view of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson — 41 percent favorable, 23 percent unfavorable — even though Trump has referred to him and Kelly as “losers” with “low IQ.” Carlson is perhaps the staunchest conservative opponent of the war.
